Firstly, please read my Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019, Chapter 17. It appears to be pivotal.

The designations QC and KC mean the same thing in essence: Queen’s Counsel and King’s Counsel. They’re used inconsistently throughout this text, which may lead to confusion, for which I apologise. This is simply because when there is a new monarch in the UK, the designation is changed accordingly. I suggest ignoring the difference where is appears, from time to time, throughout the text.

I also acknowledge that this text was written somewhat speedily. It was written and processed through a trauma-affected mind. I apologise for any inconvenience caused to the reader.

I acknowledge that the detail relating to individuals and organisations which form part of the Scottish legal establishment may appear to be complicated and confusing. This most likely affects Scots and others. Opaque structures, procedures, titles and terminology perpetuate this confusion.

Here is just one example. If a person appointed to the Court of Session bench in Scotland has the same surname as another, or even a previous, judge, that person can take a different name, or the name of a place that they wish to be associated with. A prominent example is the current Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway. Carloway is a place on the Isle of Lewis in the Scottish Outer Hebrides. On the appointment to the Court of Session bench of Colin Sutherland, QC, in February 2000, there was already a Lord Sutherland. So, he took the title Lord Carloway.

Further information about the Judiciary of Scotland can be found on that organisation’s website:

https://judiciary.scot

Further information can be found about other relevant Scottish organisations mentioned in this book on the following websites:

https://www.advocates.org.uk

https://www.copfs.gov.uk

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk

https://www.childabuseinquiry.scot

https://www.scotland.police.uk

This text is not exhaustive of the issues addressed, or the evidence relating to those issues. I have attempted to present a coherent narrative of relevant facts, evidence, issues and details as at August 2023.

About the Author

John Halley is an experienced advocate and judge in Scotland. He was called to the bar in 1997, having previously worked in residential social work with young people in the care system.  He initially appeared in many cases involving children’s interests.  He served as an Advocate Depute, which is a High Court prosecutor in Scotland, full-time and ad hoc, for several years between 2003 and 2010. He was appointed as a part time Sheriff (a judge with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, including criminal jury trials) in 2010.  Since then he has presided over, and appeared as advocate in, many civil and criminal cases.  From October 2015 until October 2016, he was one of the leading counsel to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. 

For many years, John has pursued an active interest in improvements in the conduct of child forensic interviews in Scotland. Since 2017 he has been advising a specialist team of police and social work professionals to develop, implement and teach a training regime to support the introduction of a Scottish NICHD Protocol in the Scottish Child Interview Model. While empirical data requires to be assembled and assessed, anecdotal reports indicate significant improvements have been achieved for the benefit of children and in the interests of justice.

John has expanded his interest in developmentally appropriate questioning of children and adolescents in court and related proceedings since 2016. He has devised a teaching initiative which applies the scientific consensus in relation to developmentally appropriate questioning of child victims and witnesses for the benefit of all children and adolescents involved in court and related proceedings, including suspects and accused.

In July 2018, John co-presented a Masterclass at the International Investigative Interview Research Group (iIIRG) in Porto, Portugal on the subject of Child Forensic Interviews and Court Proceedings.

In December 2018, John presented a two-day seminar for the judiciary of Chile at the Instituto de Estudios Judiciales in Santiago, Chile. The subject matter, developmentally appropriate questioning of children in court and related proceedings, was presented for teaching purposes as the iBIC Judicial Matrix¹. This teaching tool continues to be used by the judiciary of Chile as one part of a training regime in relation to scientifically validated, developmentally appropriate, forensic questioning of children and its importance for the judicial function in criminal trials.

John Halley has written a textbook for legal decision makers and practitioners in all jurisdictions on the subject of developmentally appropriate questioning which will be published soon.

1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333373118_Espanol__Protocolo_del_NICHD_Propuesta_para_Matrix_Judicial

Hard work, dedication, commitment, and a proven track record should be enough?

The rule of law is fundamental in a democratic society. Citizens’ access to justice is fundamental in a democratic society. The most vulnerable in any society should be protected by effective access to justice in the same way as the most powerful. Victims of child sexual abuse are among the most vulnerable.

The rule of law is the citizens’ constitutional safeguard against corruption. Corruption, on the other hand, leaves a lingering stench. Things don’t smell right, so to speak. When the rule of law is morphed into the rule of lawyers, corruption thrives.

This book details a narrative account of my experiences of what can happen when the rule of law is manipulated by corruption and instead becomes the rule of lawyers. In my experience, this manipulation has resulted, successfully so far, in the covering up of allegations of longstanding, serious, organised, sexual exploitation of some of the most vulnerable children and young people for whose welfare the state was responsible. There appears to be a continuing intention to protect the end-abusers. The most effective way to achieve this is to prevent effective and fearless investigation.

I decided to become a lawyer when I was working as a social worker with vulnerable young people in residential care. I thought that was the route for me to be most effective in helping people secure justice in all necessary aspects of their lives. For me, it was going back to plan A in a way. But with drive based on experience, commitment and determination to make things better. I’d left school and gone straight to Glasgow University to study law. But I was too young, immature and eager to learn about life and not just law. My elder brother had died in 1978, aged 19, while studying law at Glasgow. It was too painful to be welcomed to university drinking culture in the GUU Beer Bar, in the company of then Rector Reginald Bosanquet, by Michael’s law student friends.

So I worked as a youth worker for three years. That was a fantastic blast of what life is really about as a young person. At 22, I went back to university. This time in Edinburgh. I was only too well aware that resuming student life in Glasgow would involve many distractions. I knew one person in Edinburgh. In 1989, I graduated from New College, Edinburgh University’s Faculty of Divinity, with a MA 2/1 in Religious Studies. Then I worked in residential social work.

When I started at Wellington School, Penicuik, in 1990, I was immediately engaged by the chaotic, dynamic, enthusiastic, vibrant, but vulnerable and, to some extent, caustic and sometimes violent atmosphere generated by adolescent boys in a residential care environment. These lads had tremendous ability, sharpness, intelligence, humour, potential, and many other positive qualities that were evident in daily life. Sport was a huge part of their lives. Some were very skilled. Others less so. All were different characters. Many had been profoundly affected by adverse life circumstances. Some were suspected of being inveigled into crime of different kinds. Some were known to put themselves at risk through making money by selling themselves for sex. Others were known to put themselves and others at risk through violence or drugs. But all had potential. And the vast majority were good young people in my assessment.

I decided to go back and study law again. As a second-degree. It could be done in a concentrated two-year course for graduates. I started at Edinburgh University in October 1991. I’d just got married. In order to finance this career move, I worked as a waking night care social worker at Wellington School. Night shift for four nights per week and full-time study at university. Split sleeping shifts. Constant tiredness became a way of life. I managed both and graduated in 1993. Then came the Diploma in Legal Practice. Another academic year on full-time night shift. Young people going AWOL. Emergency Duty Team engagement and Police involvement were regular tasks.

In October 1994, I was lucky enough to start my traineeship at Brodies Solicitors in Edinburgh. Working at the bottom of the pile and glimpsing the fascinating goings-on at Parliament House, the home of the Scottish Supreme Courts and the Faculty of Advocates. I’d decided before I embarked on the law degree that that’s where I was going. I had no real idea of how to get there or what sort of work I’d be able to do. But I knew I could do it. I worked 9 to 5 at Brodies. Then I worked night shift in residential social work with young people in care every weekend. When my colleagues were off to the pub on a Friday night, I was off home for a sleep before night shift every Friday and Saturday night. Hard going and with two babies by the end of 1994. But I was young and enthusiastic. I used my weekend night shifts to study when I could. I got another job writing case digests for Greens Weekly Digest. It was every weekend, relentless. But it helped me to learn about the law in action. About procedure. And to be up to date in the pre-digital world.

Intrants to the Faculty of Advocates have to devote themselves completely to a period of training. This is called Devilling. You become a Devil Advocate. You follow your Devilmaster’s work in court and in writing, and you learn. You learn about advocacy skills and communication. I was very lucky to have arranged, completely informally, two excellent Devilmasters. Andrew Smith and Paul McBride, Advocates. I learned a lot from both. But it’s nine months when you can’t earn anything. No part-time jobs. A huge financial risk.

I was called to the Bar on 11th July 1997. I enthusiastically undertook whatever work came my way, civil and criminal. Very quickly, my previous experience in social work was identified as a relevant background for instructions in contentious child protection and related work. Difficult and, at times, harrowing stuff. I was regularly instructed by the biggest local authorities in Scotland, Edinburgh and Glasgow councils. The focus of this work reinforced for me my enduring commitment to the welfare of children and young people through the operation of the law. This has remained a constant for me throughout my subsequent career as an Advocate.

I started prosecuting criminal cases as an Advocate Depute (a depute of the Lord Advocate, head of the Scottish prosecution system) in September 2003. First of all, as an “Ad Hoc” AD, then, from late 2004, on a full-time basis. I worked hard and enjoyed prosecuting very serious cases in the public interest. Murder trials, rape trials, violence, child abuse, and the whole spectrum of depravity that the High Court in Scotland has to deal with each and every day. I learned about working with and persuading juries. I was good at it. I had a particularly impressive record in rape trials during and post 2003. At one point, I had acquired 18 consecutive convictions in rape trials. I think it may have had something to do with my previous work experience.

Then, in 2010, I was appointed as a part-time Sheriff. A Sheriff is a judge in Scotland with very wide criminal and civil jurisdiction. I frequently sat as a Sheriff between 2010 and 2016. In most Sheriff courts all over Scotland. In 2015, I was appointed as Leading Junior Counsel to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (“SCAI”). As you can imagine, this was a role that I relished. This was the role for which I was as perfectly suited as I thought I could be. Essentially, the focus of the SCAI was to be on historical abuse suffered by children in care settings. I had the relevant experience, and enduring commitment, to people who had suffered in care settings. Then, in 2016, I became ill. I had cancer. I haven’t worked formally in legal practice since 28th October 2016.

This pretty much takes us up to where I need to begin. Up until 28th October 2016, I was an accomplished court lawyer at the highest level. Since that date, as you’ll see, I’ve been unable to persuade any court, tribunal, or other authority that there’s any merit in any action or complaint I’ve made. And I’ve made many now. Just think. I’m an experienced court lawyer and judge. If I can’t legitimately assert my rights, what chance have you got? Worse still, what chance have the people who have been exploited in organised child sexual abuse got? As you’ll see, this is the focus of this text.

My Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019, is included as a later chapter. This sets out some evidence that I judged to be relevant for investigation by the SCAI. Lady Smith, Chair of SCAI, has taken a different view and rejected my Note. Read it. See what you think. I think it contains some important evidence about the trafficking of children in care and allegations of organised child sexual abuse. It highlights an investigation by the Metropolitan Police, the London police force, in and around Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1996. The Met was investigating the trafficking and sexual exploitation of young people in care between Scotland and London. The evidence led them to Edinburgh because the bank account, cheques and cards belonging to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates had been used in relevant transactions. The Dean of Faculty was Andrew Hardie, QC. By June 1997, Hardie was the Lord Advocate, head of the Scottish prosecution system, and with power to appoint judges. People who held senior positions in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), the Faculty of Advocates, and in other relevant institutions were aware of the Met investigation. Detectives had interviewed Hardie in the Dean’s room at Parliament House. They had also conducted investigations at the Faculty Clerks’ room, where they checked details in Lord Hardie’s diary.

On Hardie’s appointment as Lord Advocate, some who knew details were almost immediately promoted to judicial, silk, and other positions or allowed to take unheard-of leave from COPFS to pursue doctoral studies. Others, such as the outgoing “Tory” law officer, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, QC, the former Lord Advocate, was not afforded the conventional judicial promotion due to him. Refused by Lord Hardie. It was unprecedented, but both he and Paul Cullen, QC, the outgoing solicitor General, returned to practice at the Bar. Allegations of cronyism in judicial appointments lingered throughout the course of Lord Hardie’s tenure as Lord Advocate¹. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon was appointed to the bench immediately after Hardie was no longer Lord Advocate, in March 2000.

And don’t forget. This was happening in 1996-97. Just a few short years after the scandal engulfing Crown Office and the Scottish legal establishment in connection with an alleged “Magic Circle” had supposedly been put to bed².

I was unaware of the significance of most of these events until years later. However, it might have been important that, in 1996, my application as an intrant to the Faculty of Advocates detailed my work experience, which, at the time, included weekend work as a Residential Night Care Social Worker at St. Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh. The Met investigation in, before and after, May 1996, referred to above, was focused on a teenager in the residential unit where I worked. I had no idea at that time. The essential facts for investigation are set out in the Note. I was specifically asked about this work at an interview with the Faculty’s Scholarship Committee in June 1996, prior to Devilling. The committee was chaired by then Treasurer of Faculty, Colin Sutherland, QC, later to take the judicial title Lord Carloway. He was one of several senior QC’s who interviewed me. The scholarship committee interview happened during the Met investigation. I was oblivious to that investigation at the time.

You can see already that, in a small legal system like Scotland’s, especially at the top, it’s critically important to ensure structural integrity, accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. The Lord Advocate’s right to appoint judges is an obvious example. This right of patronage was removed after Lord Hardie’s last judicial appointment as Lord Advocate was made: of himself, with much public outcry about continuity of leadership and decision-making in relation to the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 case³. Part of that article explains:

“In less than six weeks, Lord Hardie, the lord advocate, Scotland’s senior law officer, was supposed to lead the prosecution against the two Libyan suspects at Kamp van Zeist, in the Netherlands. But he quit late on Wednesday – and appointed himself a judge.”

Hardie’s last appointment to the Court of Session bench, just prior to appointing himself, in exercise of the Lord Advocate’s right of patronage, was the current Lord President, Lord Carloway⁴. As Colin Sutherland, QC, he had been Treasurer of the Faculty of Advocates since 1994 and throughout Hardie’s tenure as Dean. Throughout the Met investigation in 1996-97.

The rule of law is fundamental in a democratic society. It should provide the guarantee that the law is applied evenly and without fear or favour for every citizen. The principle of judicial independence is vital. Judges are protected in discharging their proper judicial duties by the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence. Fundamental to the rule of law is the principle that no person is above the law, not even judges. Structural integrity is essential to ensure that all of these principles are rigorously applied in practice. Closely related to the concept of the rule of law is the principle of accountability. Accountability and transparency of actions and decision-making are closely allied too with the concept of judicial independence. The democratic principle of judicial independence demands appropriate and necessary accountability. There may be debate about where the line falls to be drawn. But a vacuum of accountability at the very top of the judiciary is not compatible with meaningful judicial independence. It is compatible with, and is capable of facilitating, unaccountable decision-making and abuses of powers.

Uncomfortably proximate decision-making, and decision-makers, are not justified by insistence on the applicability of the rule of law as an abstract concept. Especially in a small legal system. These force justification to be asserted on the basis of personal incorruptibility. Personal incorruptibility is never a sufficient substitute for structural integrity in implement of the rule of law.

No litigant should ever be left wondering whether his or her case was discussed at table or bedroom by the authorities (or their close colleagues) before whom, or against whom, a litigation is taking place. Personal guarantees of the personal incorruptibility of others are no substitute for objectively demonstrable structural integrity. Compromised structural integrity can all too easily slip into the rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law.

The notion of what is, and what is not, an arguable case in law is a flexible concept. The rule of lawyers is a danger to be avoided at all costs. The rule of lawyers lays the path to corruption in a small legal system like Scotland. This danger is enhanced by the entrepreneurial imperative of Advocates; the unrelenting need to generate work and therefore fee income; and the need for grace and favour for advancement. Nepotism and corruption can thrive in such a system. This model of professional structure and operation may no longer be an acceptable one for the provision of properly independent legal services in the broader interests of justice.

And gossip. In a very small, largely contained, legal hub like Parliament House in Edinburgh, gossip is a particular danger. Relationships developed over decades blur the distinctions between personal and professional conversations and details. Gossip is an important currency at Parliament House. Read Nimmo Smith and Friel’s Magic Circle report, referred to in the link above, and you’ll see why.

It concerned me greatly when I heard the current Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, say informally on two different occasions in about 2012-14, at judicial training events, that the previous Lord President, Lord Gill, repeatedly said that he had a file on everyone. Why? If true, isn’t such a statement indicative of structural questionability, if not compromise? And why would Lord Gill be saying such a thing to his then-next most senior judge, Lord Carloway? A small legal system in which its most senior judge systematically banks, hides, and retains personal secrets about its personnel might appear to the objective reader to be the very antithesis of a satisfactorily transparent system. Compromised.

It was in this factual and structural context that I made my wide-eyed, idealistic, enthusiastic, and committed to justice way into practice as an Advocate when I was called to the Bar on 11th July 1997.

This book describes, from my direct personal experience, important facts and details. It demonstrates what happens when the rule of lawyers replaces the rule of law.

I have written this book because, despite what I have seen, I still believe that facts, the truth and the law are all so important that they should prevail, at all costs. I believe that the majority of lawyers and judges in Scotland are committed to those principles.

My silence about the subject matter will do nothing to protect children in care, the public interest, or me.

As you will see, it suits a collaboration of interests, including the Lord President, Lady Smith, the Dean of Faculty, and the Lord Advocate, all my opponents in litigation, very well indeed to keep the threat, or even the prospect, of criminal proceedings, based on fabrication, hanging over my head indefinitely. This does not appear to be a coincidence. It is also a tried and tested manner in which to ensure the abuse of power is made most effective for those who wield it. I reasonably infer the intention is to ensure my silence.

By publishing this book, I am exercising my right to freedom of expression. This publication constitutes a protected act, or series of protected acts, under section 27(1) and (2) of the Equality Act 2010. I am also compelled to exercise the rights available to me as a whistleblower in my different areas of interest and activity and in my different professional contexts and capacities.

I am compelled to narrate the detail in this book because there is an overwhelmingly strong element of public interest in telling the truth about longstanding abuses of children, and of powers, in and by, actors in the legal establishment in Scotland. In order to tell that truth, this publication is made as, or as part of, a discussion in good faith of these critically important public affairs, or other matters of general public interest and importance. By publishing the detail in this book, any risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to this critically important discussion. There is no such risk in my assessment.

The ground I will cover includes:

• How the independent SCAI has been influenced by the Scottish Government and others.

• How without transparency, or change to its terms of reference, the SCAI’s scope of investigation has been narrowed to exclude events and practices of great relevance and longstanding, persistent concern in the public interest.

• How my efforts to shine a light on this have resulted in my publicly funded persecution, culminating in false criminal accusations, and untrue coordinated publicity which, by design, creates a false impression of the true nature of those accusations.

• How those persecuting me have abused their positions, the law, and legal process to protect themselves, evade scrutiny, and harm me and my family.

• How this has had a devastating effect on my family and professional life.

• Of critical importance, how the most vulnerable members of our society are denied justice and remain at risk. Children who have been, or continue to be, abused within the care system. Children remain at risk.

1https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12215647.case-for-the-defence/

2https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228813/ 0377.pdf.

3https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/18/lockerbie.gerardseenan

4https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12216187.new-lord-carloway-joins-bench/

Utterly shocking.

It’s difficult to know where to start to explain how it’s ended up. It’s been a long, difficult, and anxious journey. Time and again, I’ve been genuinely surprised by the sheer, naked, undisguised propensity for senior judges, lawyers, government ministers, civil servants, journalists, and others too many to mention, to opt for corrupt behaviour. I don’t necessarily mean money in brown envelopes, although income streams, future appointments, and career paths definitely play a significant role. That’s part of the way the structure operates and self-perpetuates.

The core underlying issues relate to the investigation, and the need for prevention, of child sexual abuse. Trafficking of children in care. Surely senior judges, lawyers, and others, would always take vigorous and determined action to ensure, as best can be done, that these issues are identified and prioritised? Apparently not, as I’ll try my best to explain.

I’ve tried my very best to ensure that the investigation, and prevention, of the sexual abuse of children are prioritised by those with whom, in many ways, the ultimate decision-making responsibility lies.

As a result, I’ve been judicially monstered. I’ve been falsely set up in mass media as a person implicated in the sexual abuse of children. By a “judge”. When there is absolutely no factual basis, or even a single allegation, suggesting that such an implication is true or justified. None. And she knows it. And they all know that. And no one has said so. No one. Not even the present Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC.

This communication from 9^th March 2023 demonstrates that 3 x 1 Group, a media company appointed by the Scottish Government for the SCAI’s communications and media, and used by Lady Smith, was involved in shaping the mass media messaging and coverage about me on 9^th and 10^th March 2023. 3 x 1 Group is also at Lord Hardie’s disposal as Chair of the Edinburgh Trams Inquiry:

Lady Smith was actively involved in shaping a false mass media message presenting me to the world as a man who has been implicated in child sexual abuse. That is completely untrue. There is absolutely no factual basis for such an allegation or implication. Lady Smith knows it is wholly and completely untrue. Monstering. The way to destroy a man’s reputation, professional and personal. That was her intention. To destroy my life. And the lives of my family.

When I say mass media, I mean the story, and it is just a story about me, that was published and broadcast almost everywhere in Scotland and beyond. It was in newspapers, on social media, on TV, on radio, and even local radio and news outlets carried it. A mass media strategy. It was far more widely, and more effectively, disseminated than the SCAI’s media releases to date about child abuse. The Belfast Telegraph carried it. Publications in the USA and beyond picked it up. Just google me, and you’ll find them.

I need to deal with a couple of definitions. Othering: to view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself. To the extent that the rights afforded to all are alienated, by-passed or denied. The othering process has consistently been deployed in relation to me. It began in SCAI, as you’ll see.

Monstering is one of those terms that’s crept into the vernacular. It’s a powerful, descriptive term that has been verbalised to potent effect. I suspect it’s been adopted into common use through social media like Twitter or X. These days almost anybody can be hung out to dry by the creation and crafting of a narrative which presents them as undesirable, or as some kind of monster. That’s the meaning in this text. I’ve been made to look like a monster in the media. Someone who is other. But othered to the extent that there’s something about me that right-thinking people should fear. Monstered. By a “judge”. And she knows it’s untrue.

Or, as has been said of me by a lawyer before Lady Smith’s monstering even happened, “discredited.” Prescience of Campbell Deane, solicitor, Glasgow. Monstering can be done even if the fundamental narrative is untrue. But not usually by a “judge.” Judges are wise, aren’t they? Effective monstering is entirely dependent on the power of social and mass media. Anyway, I feel it. I’ve been monstered. Monstered by a “judge”. Or, at least, by someone holding herself out as a “judge.” And allowed to do so.

Usually, you’d expect lawyers to complain about what’s been written about them by a judge in a judgement. I’m not complaining about the actions of a judge in a judicial, lawful, or decision-making process at all. I’m talking about the unconscionable and unlawful actions of a person apparently without the ability to exercise normal, fair, lawful, and balanced judgement in some of the actions she takes. There’s lots of evidence to this effect, as I’ll tell you about. Apparently, she’s unable to act within the normal boundaries of judgement expected of a human being. At least, in relation to me. And with state-funded power, money, and a media company at her disposal. Very, very dangerous. Also, with access to police resources and decision-making. Even more dangerous.

I don’t really know what I’ve done during my career as an Advocate to upset The Right Honourable Lady Anne Smith. Maybe nothing. Maybe it’s not even about me. Or, at least, it wasn’t originally about me. I’m really not sure. I think it’s about me now. And about organised child sexual abuse. And trafficking of children in care. I’ve dared to challenge and question her “supreme” authority. Repeatedly. I’ll tell you more about the detail.

The monstering happened on 9^th March 2023. That morning an article about me appeared in the Times. The online version even had a photo. It reported that I had been arrested for “sexual offences.” Not “alleged” offences. Just “sexual offences”. No presumption of innocence for me, then. That aspect’s actionable. And will be actioned. It’s untrue. But the Times must’ve been confident of a speedy conviction to print the headline. Even in its later editions, having accommodated 3 x 1 Group’s revisals, no one appears to have suggested the inclusion of the term “alleged.”

The single fact that the article based itself on, to give Lady Smith a foot in, was that I’d been appointed as leading junior counsel to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (“SCAI”) in September 2015. That single fact allowed the regular repetition of the phrases “child abuse” and “child abuse inquiry.” The net effect was not that cunning or clever. Not even very subtle. Only the most careful reader would take time to revisit individual sentences and suspect that my arrest didn’t relate to allegations of child sexual abuse. The vast majority wouldn’t and didn’t take such care. Social and other media were soon awash with vitriolic, putrid assertions about yet another paedophile, white, privileged lawyer hiding in plain sight. The monstering process was duly completed by the BBC and others, in tandem with Lady Smith’s very own low-life media facility, 3 x 1 Group. The SCAI media man, Graham McKendry of 3 x 1, used to hack for the News of the World. That’s the calibre of media strategist used by Lady Smith and the SCAI. I’ll be in touch with all of them later.

Lady Smith, through 3 x 1 Group, intentionally and maliciously implied in mass media communications about me that I had been implicated in child sexual abuse. This is the meaning that even intelligent and sophisticated readers took from the media narrative which Lady Smith shaped.

One example is shown in tweets by Mandate Now. These illustrate an intelligent person’s understanding of the mass media narrative about me, which Lady Smith ensured, through 3 x 1 Group, was distributed widely to mass media outlets in Scotland and beyond:

These tweets were published by Tom Perry of Mandate Now. Tom Perry is a very articulate and intelligent man. He draughts legislation about the Mandatory Reporting of safeguarding concerns for the protection of children. Tom Perry is someone I’ve collaborated with and discussed relevant issues about the need for safeguarding of children in the UK over the last four or so years. I was keen to clarify what it was that Tom Perry understood from the media shaped by Lady Smith, as published in the Times and by the BBC. Tom Perry confirmed to me that he understood that I had been arrested in relation to child sexual abuse offences. He emphasised, in his tweets, the important parts of the publications that led him to that conclusion. It’s pretty obvious.

I explained to Tom Perry that, despite the clear implication in the media publications that I was arrested in relation to child sexual abuse, there is no allegation relating to such offences. It has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Tom Perry clarified his understanding for me in a Twitter DM as follows:

“Thank you John. The principle implication we took from it is images. Thank you for your note.

Mar 9, 2023, 8:16 PM”.

This was the understanding that Lady Smith and her media snakes intended to create.

Although I had explained to Tom Perry that I had not, in fact, been arrested in relation to any allegations related to child sexual abuse, those tweets have remained published on Twitter even until the time of writing. Inviting the world to “pls RT for others to read.”

As Perry explained, the intended implication of the mass media articles was clear. The Times publication is still available at¹.

The BBC’s is still available at².

Others saw the obvious and not very cleverly veiled implication. This is another example of a Twitter commentator’s view from the sceptical end of the spectrum:

Andrew De Moray @liquidbotanical Mar 9

“WTF?

Is this what happens to you when you try to expose the real paedos?”³ And he was right.

These morons also reported my address as Caddonfoot, near Galashiels. There are only five houses in Caddonfoot. This was tantamount to publishing my family’s address. All over the world. Monstering. And it’s untrue. By a “judge.”

There are media reports about me all over the internet, embedded with my name. This was Lady Smith’s intention. And that of her “Media Strategist,” the low-life McKendry.

There was a small component of truth in the media generated and shaped by Lady Smith. I had been arrested on 15^th February 2023. I’ll tell you more about why. It was a set-up. But the substance of the fabricated complaint for the arrest should have had nothing at all to do with Lady Smith or the SCAI. The subject matter is not within the SCAI’s terms of reference. It’s not clear to me yet just how much Lady Smith, the SCAI, and other “authorities” had to do with my arrest. But it’s clear that there is a reasonable basis to suspect both knowledge and participation by certain “authorities” in Scotland, especially Lady Smith and SCAI. And Lady Smith had motive. I am her opponent in litigation. And not for the first time. Her enemy. Her nemesis. She is my superior. I must be crushed. Monstered.

The sexual offences charges are based on a fabricated sequence from a series of private, consensual WhatsApp messages and images I exchanged with a woman during short periods of time, seven and eight years ago in 2015 and 2016. The woman initiated these exchanges and sent me explicit images of herself and messages first. All these years later, it was being asserted that the exchanges were not consensual exchanges and that I had bombarded her with a fabricated sequence of material over a two-day period on 9^th and 10^th August 2016. That is demonstrably untrue. The police charged me after an unusually conducted “no comment” interview, even though there was no corroboration, a requirement of the criminal law in Scotland. It was weird. No doubt part of the monstering plan.

The importance of the police having charged me, whether they were right or wrong to do so, was that it could be reported in the media without comment or consent from “the accused.” The legal position is well explained by Joshua Rozenberg in February 2022⁴. However, my situation can be readily contrasted with that of Sheriff Alistair Duff⁵. After Duff’s arrest (and permitted immediate retirement), journalists hung around his home, hoping for a glimpse or comment. No one appeared at my home. I wonder why the difference? Maybe they knew I was very likely to comment.

Anyway, it was game on for Lady Smith. And she went for it. Ably assisted by her “Media Strategist” McKendry. Viciously. Read it. And ask yourselves whether you’d like it or think it was fair if it involved you and your family. There are various formulations of ethics and principles of journalism⁶. These include the obligation to be truthful and accurate; to minimise harm; to act independently; to be accountable; and to act with humanity. As far as I can see, none were adhered to in the mass media monstering.

And there was another weird aspect. Although the arresting police were Borders cops, based in Galashiels, and had told me that a complaint had been made by the complainer in August 2022, their report was to be sent to the public prosecutor, the Procurator Fiscal (“PF”), in Livingston, West Lothian. Very unusual, in fact unknown, at least in my experience. The Gala cops would normally report to the Borders PF in Selkirk. The police themselves do not have discretion in relation to which PF crime reports have to be submitted. That worried me. A smell about it that was odd. Not normal. I’d been visited in late January by cops from Livingston who wanted to note a statement from me as a witness in circumstances I’ll tell you about. From the “National Child Abuse Investigation Unit.” Working with, and for, Lady Smith in the SCAI? Definitely connected to SCAI. For sure.

Once you identify odd connections that don’t normally exist, you begin to think that something isn’t as it should be. Once you’ve witnessed and experienced corruption by the likes of Lady Smith, her SCAI civil servants, and their groupthink, you become very sensitive to its detection. The smell becomes a stench.

The effect of the monstering in the media was as intended by Lady Smith. It was her intention to silence me on social media and in the press. This is something she’d tried desperately to do repeatedly, unlawfully, and with the help of others, such as Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty. Dunlop has skin in many of the important legal games in Scotland. He’s obviously taken it upon himself to try to shore up Lady Smith by dealing with me. We’ll see. Corrupt behaviour only undermines legitimate authority.

I’ve been openly, rightly, and justifiably critical of Lady Smith, of SCAI, and of the senior judicial authorities in Scotland since May 2019. I’ve also been vocal about the need for investigation and action in connection with credible and enduring allegations of apparently organised child sexual abuse and trafficking of children and adolescents in care, apparently involving judges, lawyers, and others in Scotland. I was silenced on 9^th March 2023. Why?

The answer to that question seems unavoidably related to the absolute imperative to stop me from raising issues about child trafficking and organised child sexual abuse and the legal profession in Scotland and perhaps beyond.

Ever since I began to openly and publicly criticise Lady Smith from early May 2019 when I launched a Twitter account @AdvocateHalley, she has repeatedly tried to manoeuvre herself into the position where she can be the judge rather than my opponent. This is her default position. Her allies and collaborators have adopted the same modus, as you’ll see. This is how the rule of law can operate in Scotland. It’s not always about the law. Often, it’s about the lawyers. Judges, advocates, solicitors, lawyers. Twisting the law by advancing “arguable” nonsense and abusing the power that it gives them. It’s the rule of lawyers. That’s quite different from the rule of law, as you’ll see. It licenses and appears to legitimate actions and status that, when properly analysed, have no legal basis at all. Yet those actions are insisted in, for years and at massive public expense. In the end, they, like Lady Smith, plead that it was just an honest mistake as to the meaning and effect of the law in good faith. That’s one way corruption can work in Scotland.

The other aspect which appears critically important to Lady Smith’s perception of herself was to vindicate her own credentials as “judge.” And not as my opponent, bully, discriminator, and coverer-up-in-chief of serious allegations of organised child sexual abuse and trafficking. Cover up by deplorable delay and failure to investigate. Delay of over four years to date in relation to my Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019. You can read it later on. You can decide for yourself if it’s relevant and important material for investigation within the SCAI’s terms of reference. Unacceptable delay in investigation of alleged abuse by the most powerful in society of those most vulnerable, young people in the care system. While simultaneously and publicly attempting, belatedly, to placate abuse survivors from the Edinburgh private schools⁷.

But the consequences of the monstering by Lady Smith have been severe. Not only for me but for my family. The monstering has caused myself and my family real, genuine, profound, and enduring distress. And to our friends and relatives. I’ve been publicly presented as a person who’s implicated in child sexual abuse. That is completely untrue. Lady Smith knows that. Utterly shocking.

The monstering was effective because it feeds on peoples’ genuine fears about child sexual abuse and child sexual abusers. Let’s just stay away until it’s cleared up one way or another. There’s no smoke without fire. That’s been said to my daughter. The result is alienation of and from people whose trust was previously unquestioning. People who know me well. But especially people who don’t know me so well. Locals. Caution. You can’t be seen to be associated with someone who appears to have been implicated in child sexual abuse. A judge chairing a child abuse inquiry wouldn’t lie. Oh yes, she would. And she did. Monstering.

I’ve worked all my life in the interests of vulnerable and disadvantaged children and young people. I’ve worked professionally and voluntarily for the welfare of children and young people. I still do. Often for no gain, reward, or remuneration. I called it my “no fee, no fee” practice. Since 2010, as a lawyer and a part-time judge, I’ve been committed to doing my best to ensure that forensic communications with children and young people in police interviews, court, and care proceedings, and related contexts are developmentally appropriate communications. Not for a fee. Not for favour or advancement. This is a vitally important issue about effective communications to make children’s rights properly effective. I’ve helped Police Scotland and Social Work Scotland to develop and implement the Scottish Child Interview Model, based on the NICHD Protocol. I’ve done this for the last six years. Pro bono. For nothing. For good. Ask them. They’ll tell you. I’ve done the same internationally. In other countries. In Chile. All taken away by Lady Smith with the use of a low-life media company, 3 x 1 Group, and funded by public funds. Monstered. And it’s completely untrue. With the most senior members of the Scottish judiciary complicit by silence. And the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Watching, waiting, and hoping it makes me discontinue sensitive proceedings involving them. And threatening me. With criminal conviction and financial ruin. I’ll show you the detail.

People all over the world saw and read this judicial monstering. People who know me were genuinely upset. Untrue. Completely untrue. Lies. Lady Smith. A liar. Worse than that, actually. Lady Smith and her inquiry team in SCAI are beset by the most virulent strain of groupthink. I’ve seen it in action, which I’ll tell you about later. They probably think they’re justified in their actions. With them, Lady Smith tried her hardest to hit me where it would hurt me most. In my home. And in my family. This isn’t the Mafia I’m talking about. This is a person who is entitled to be designed as Right and Honourable. You can decide if this designation is merited.

Lady Smith’s vicious monstering of me in the mass media also caused genuine difficulties for friends and people we know. Betrayed sometimes by just a slight hesitation on chance meeting. But definitely there. I’ve had to figure out stuff. Small things. Like the window cleaners, who’ve been coming regularly out of the blue for more than 20 years, have stopped coming. Monstered. And without any essential element of truth.

The monstering follows on from Lady Smith’s vicious treatment of me when I was diagnosed with bowel cancer on 10^th October 2016. She immediately tried to use the diagnosis as a weakness to be ruthlessly exploited by her. I’ll tell you all about it. She tried to force me to resign from what ought to have been a relatively secure appointment for a self-employed Advocate with a critical illness and uncertain life prospects. As an aspect of that behaviour, she gave me permission to work from home after the traumatic cancer diagnosis and then refused to pay my fee notes because she hadn’t seen evidence of whether or not I’d been working. Maybe I was just sitting about at home, fearful for the future, worrying and wasting my time and good public money? Please read the detail.

The licence and permission given to Lady Smith for the media monstering should cause concern for any sensible and intelligent person in Scotland. And beyond. It raises very significant questions. Like, who’s really in control? Where does real power lie in Scotland? It doesn’t seem to lie with the politicians. The senior judiciary, even those who are retired, it seems appear to be unaccountable. To anyone.

But I’ve obviously upset those with real power. Maybe you’ll have some idea of where real power lies in Scotland after reading this account of what can happen when you try to investigate the organised activities of paedophiles and hold them to account. Judicial monstering.

1https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-child-abuse-inquiry-lawyer-arrested-over-sex-offences-clmk35q2k

2https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-64905106

3https://twitter.com/liquidbotanical/status/1633967179103195136?s=20

4https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/suspects-and-the-right-to-privacy/5111620.article

5https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sheriff-in-lockerbie-bomber-trial-arrested-nhlfp3ldt

6https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/201011/Journalism/index16e4.html?page_id=24#:~:text=TheSociety%20of%20Professional%20Journalits,Minimize%20Harm

7https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicky-campbell-school-abuse-victims-are-being-listened-to-at-last-qg6brxn5j

You can’t shoot yourself in the head twice, can you?

This chapter seeks to highlight some relevant structural aspects and deficits which provide the necessary context within which child sexual abuse cover-up and corruption can and do happen. The different compromised structures of the Scottish legal establishment, which are referred to, are more consistent with the rule of lawyers than with the rule of law.

I’ve been pretty vocal on Twitter and in the media about the need to investigate and determine facts about what seem to be allegations of organised child sexual abuse in Scotland, which have persisted for decades now. Or at least child sexual abuse with an organised element. You can find the detail on Twitter @AdvocateHalley or just by googling my name. Of course, when you google my name now, the search results will feature all the media about my arrest and Lady Smith’s monstering of me. That’s because, in order to make the monstering most effective, Lady Smith’s underlings and the BBC put my name in the hyperlinks or search criteria or however it works. A child abuse inquiry? I got more media attention from SCAI than their own subsequent case study (more like a holiday brochure) on Loretto School: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-chairing-scottish-child-abuse-29833711. SCAI had to be careful with Loretto. Both SCAI senior counsel had links to Loretto.

I must’ve really stumbled onto something. Is it Queen Victoria School Dunblane¹; or Fornethy House respite facility for wee girls from Glasgow, in Perthshire². Or the Metropolitan Police, the London police force operating in East Lothian and Edinburgh, investigating the trafficking of young people from Scotland to London in 1996 when their principal lead featured Lord Hardie’s bank account? See my Note later. Lord Hardie is another retired judge. He has the services of 3 x 1 Group available to him, too, for the Edinburgh Trams Inquiry. The stench.

I think it’s also significant that Lady Smith herself has been reluctant to name even prolific paedophiles in her capacity as SCAI Chair³. Lady Smith appears to be certain about restriction orders when they prevent people from naming paedophiles in relation to Edinburgh private schools. She is very assertive that her orders are to be followed. However, she and her whole inquiry team are to be regarded as honest, but hopelessly mistaken, lawyers when she made unlawful restriction orders about my disability discrimination claim in 2019 (see BBC v Rt Hon Lady Smith [2022] CSIH 5 and⁴).
And surprisingly, the leader of the mistaken but honest lawyer group in Lady Smith’s legal team is Dunlop, the Dean of Faculty.

Are these matters really the sort of details that a public inquiry for the investigation of historical child sexual abuse should be trying to keep secret?

As you’ll have seen from the links in the previous paragraph, one guy, Iain Wares, was a teacher at Fettes School and Edinburgh Academy, Edinburgh, in the 1970s. He’s the subject of multiple, serious allegations of sexual abuse of children he was responsible for teaching. Still, Lady Smith had an SCAI restriction order in place preventing identification of him as such until it had to be challenged by survivors, including Broadcaster Nicky Campbell, in 2023. Wares lives in South Africa. The Scottish prosecution authority, COPFS, is trying to extradite Wares. Wares seems to have a very useful, and possibly fundamentally correct, legal argument based on the new South African constitutional setup, which might prevent his extradition. So, survivors were not able to name Wares. Crown Office is not able to extradite him. Justice was denied to survivors, at least in part by Lady Smith and the groupthink. Ian Blackford MP named Wares in the House of Commons as an abuser of children at Fettes School and Edinburgh Academy in the 1970s. The Times had the guts to report the name of Wares. The BBC followed suit. So did other newspapers. Then the BBC removed his name. So did other newspapers. All because Lady Smith and COPFS were threatening them with legal action. Very Lady Smith and the groupthink. Not very able and a bit off-beam. For naming a paedophile. Note the SCAI and COPFS collaboration that is so misguided that, no matter how well-founded in law, it appears to operate to protect a serial paedophile. These are not exactly the essential prerequisites for the exercise of balanced judgement in sensitive matters affecting vulnerable people. But Lady Smith relented. She’s very interested in holding public hearings in relation to abuse in the Edinburgh private schools. Now the survivors feel listened to. She’s apparently not very interested in investigating the organised sexual abuse and child trafficking of children in the care system in Scotland, however. Especially when lawyers and judges may have been involved.

So, from my perspective, the clear message imparted to others about the monstering seems to be this: if you mess with Lady Smith and the senior judges in Scotland, you might find yourself set up to look like a child sex offender in the media. Who cares about the truth, justice, reputation, family, or even the protection of children? This is about power. Power without accountability.

In addition, there was a conspiracy of knowledge that I was to be arrested months before the bizarre execution of the arrest itself on 15th February 2023. I didn’t know. This is in sharp contrast with the efforts that have gone into protecting, by keeping all information quiet and to a minimum, Sheriff Alastair Duff since October 2021. There’s more on this later. But for present purposes, the Judicial Office for Scotland, the BBC, the Times, and other media outlets might reasonably be viewed as having soft-pedalled media about his arrest for what were belatedly called “communication offences” by COPFS. Not “sexual offences” like me. “Communication offences.”

Duff was arrested in October 2021 and permitted to retire on 1st December 2021. No one’s entitled to know anything about this. All power in relation to the issue rests with his close professional associate, Lord Carloway, the Lord President. Scotland’s most senior judge. And he appears to be accountable to no one about that or about many other matters. Duff has many other close, longstanding, and enduring personal connections right at the top of the Scottish legal establishment. The irresistible inference is that Duff is being protected. Contrast that with the media monstering of me. I’m told by journalists that I’m the only case in which the Judicial Office for Scotland has been quite so keen to give as much detail as possible. A person who is not implicated in child sexual abuse in any way. Monstering.

As to the conspiracy of knowledge, I already know that I was regarded by one media solicitor as “discredited” by about mid-December 2022. The solicitor in question is called Campbell Deane. I don’t know him at all. He’s a Glasgow solicitor who holds himself out as an expert in media law. His firm is Bannantyne Kirkwood France. He “legals” for different newspapers. Legalling for newspapers is an interesting, unregulated enterprise in Scotland. Paul McBride QC, now deceased, one of my two Devilmasters in the Faculty of Advocates, legalled for various newspapers. For years. McBride was notoriously indiscrete. He told me lots of facts about lots of advocates, judges and others.

McBride knew the criminal law back to front and was razor sharp on his feet in court. Very effective in criminal trials as a prosecutor or defence counsel. I’ve been his Devil, his junior counsel, and even his opponent when I was a High Court prosecutor. I know. But he knew nothing at all about any component part of what might be regarded as civil law. Like most of what the law is. Anecdotal reports of the legal assessment for content in the press always sounded extremely ropey to me. There didn’t appear to be much legal content. For one hideous example, see the awful story of Denise Clair and the footballers Goodwillie and Robertson⁵. Dorothy Bain, the present Lord Advocate, represented Goodwillie at proof in civil proceeding and unsuccessfully on appeal⁶⁷⁸. Bain had held the position of Principal Advocate Depute until a few weeks prior to the decision not to proceed with prosecutions of Goodwillie and Robertson on 25^th July 2011.

Other examples of ropey “no pro” decisions in Crown Office are referred to in my Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019. Read it later on too. McBride’s legalling practice often seemed to have been operated in conjunction with his ability to turn up at Crown Office and persuade those responsible that, actually, cases against his clients shouldn’t be prosecuted at all. Like Douglas Haggerty, Head of Legal Services at SLAB, the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Usually lifted after an incident with a boy in a public toilet. McBride sat on the SLAB Board with Haggerty. McBride also earned his substantial fee income from SLAB.

Anyway, back to Deane’s legalling and me being “discredited.” John Glover, a very junior journalist with the Scottish Daily Express, had been allowed by his Editor to print a series of articles focused on and around my Note for SCAI dated 1st April 2019. This was in late 2022 to early 2023. You can google the articles, for example, at https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-child-abuse-inquiry-accused-28684548⁹. He was interested in the Magic Circle aspects and in what Susie Henderson had to say about her father, Shiny Bob Henderson QC (see BBC podcast Shiny Bob: The Devil’s Advocate¹⁰). And others, including Lord Hardie.

Lord Hardie is now a retired Scottish judge, a man who has enjoyed ultimate power within a very small legal system and establishment. A man who had the power as Lord Advocate to appoint all judges. The last Lord Advocate to have that power, the right of “patronage.” Yes, even in 2000. Many of Hardie’s appointees still hold office. At the very highest UK levels. A man whose last appointment to judicial office was of himself, although he says it was on the recommendation of Donald Dewar. A man whose conduct has never been properly investigated in relation to serious allegations of sexual misconduct towards a child, Susie Henderson, and a young man in care. Lord Hardie still enjoys a lot of power, even now. He’s been chairing the public inquiry into the Edinburgh Trams project for almost ten years now. No disciplinary proceedings for Lord Hardie. Mildly criticised in 2022 for not reporting allegations of child sexual abuse by his friend and Devil, John Watt KC¹¹. The critics failed to mention that one of the complainers about Watt, the same Susie Henderson, has also alleged over many years that Hardie sexually abused her when she was a child. Mildly criticised in 2023 for earning too much money when chairing the Edinburgh Trams Inquiry¹². But no mention of anything more serious. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Lord Hardie is apparently protected.

It was a surprise to me that Glover had been allowed by his Editor to run these articles from late 2022 to early 2023. It seemed odd that such a journalistic novice should be permitted to cover and print such controversial material. I suspected I was being set up. Glover was even encouraged to send me information that I viewed as a thinly veiled threat. It was a reference to Willie Macrae. A Scottish nationalist stalwart who died in mysterious circumstances and was supposed to have shot himself in the head. Twice¹³. You can’t shoot yourself twice in the head.

I’d never heard of Macrae before, but I thought this might be a threat. I still suspect I was being set up all along. Glover appeared to be young, inexperienced, and naïve. But maybe not as naïve as me? He phoned me regularly at the time of the articles. He presented as really interested in getting to the truth. On 15th December 2022, he phoned me. We were talking about my input into an article to be published soon. Glover slipped into the conversation that his Editor had been told I was “discredited.” I gently asked who had said that. Glover told me his Editor had been advised that I was discredited by the solicitor who “legalled” for the Scottish Daily Express. He had been told he should be careful about the information and detail provided by me because of that. I asked the name of the solicitor. Glover told me his name was Campbell Deane. Glover asked me not to make a fuss. I told him I wouldn’t.

At 17.14 on 15th December 2022, I emailed Campbell Deane. I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t know him. I’ve never seen him in a court. He’s never appeared before me or against me. I had no idea why Campbell Deane would be advising the Editor of the Scottish Daily Express that I was “discredited.” I googled his firm and sent him an email as follows:

“Dear Mr Deane

I understand that you used the term “discredited” in relation to my professional reputation when advising the Editor of the Scottish Daily Express in relation to defamation, ironically.

I will be pleased to receive an explanation of what exactly you meant by the term “discredited,” whether it is your view or that of other named persons; what was meant by the term when you used it; and on what evidence is the use of the term predicated?

I look forward to receiving your response.

Regards
John Halley, Advocate.”

Within minutes Glover was on the phone again. His relaxed and almost flippant manner was no longer. He was audibly traumatised. His voice was quivering and shaking like a child. He sounded like he’d been crying. He told me that he’d been called in by his Editor. The Editor had been contacted by Campbell Deane. Glover was given a rocket and told he would be sacked unless I agreed not to do anything in relation to Deane. I told Glover to relax. I said I wouldn’t take any action against Deane. I told him I was just marking Deane’s card in case his comment was a reference to something specific. It was. But I had no idea at the time. I shrugged the discredited insult off and thought that’s fine, there’s no basis for it. I’ll be in contact with Mr Deane in a wee while. I’m sure he’ll make an excellent witness.

In retrospect, I wish I’d taken immediate action against Campbell Deane. If I’d done that, I might’ve become aware that it was an open secret in circles within the Scottish legal profession that I’d been “discredited”; and that I was going to be arrested in relation to allegations of sexual offences. The secret had been at large for months, from late 2022 until the arrest in February 2023. I can prove all of that.

Now, if there had been a complaint about me made to the police, then any leak about this matter must have come from them or from the complainer. Both are unlikely for reasons that I’ll explain later. The complainer is behaving as if the media about me has absolutely nothing to do with her. Living her best life. Moving and working closer and closer to where I live. The police don’t have ready access to the legal profession in general.

However, if the discrediting information was leaked through Lady Smith and the SCAI, that would explain such information being at large in legal circles in Scotland. That’s more likely, for reasons I’ll explain.

Was it known by my Faculty colleagues? By the Dean of Faculty, Dunlop? Have you seen his Twitter account @RoddyQC? At about that time, he suddenly began tweeting about predatory men and paedophiles. You can look and see it. Not issues he’d been particularly interested in previously. Especially about Hardie, Duff, and others. He couldn’t be drawn on that stuff. Could there possibly be an open secret at large in the legal world in Scotland that Dunlop doesn’t know about? A secret that Lady Smith and her SCAI groupthinkers knew about and maybe even had more involvement with?

But this has been a really nasty, vicious set up. Executed but in a different way from Macrae. But executed just the same. It’s been frightening for my family. We’ve been very worried about evidence being planted and even personal safety. My execution was long in the planning and knowing anticipation. Yet fundamentally defective. Lady Smith had to go too far in the mass media she shaped. Media monstering.

I know that “the authorities” and various other players and people in and around the legal profession in Scotland knew that I was going to be accused of committing sexual offences and that I’d be arrested. The knowledge was at large for months before the date of my arrest on 15th February 2023. Even the Editor of Scottish Legal News, Graham Ogilvy, knew about it months in advance of it happening. Certainly prior to Christmas 2022, according to one lawyer. He’ll be an important witness along with others. The BBC’s Andrew Picken included. I’m a fairly effective cross-examiner.

There was, therefore, a period of months for Lady Smith and the groupthink to prepare the monstering in the press and media. This scenario is about as callous and cynical as could be put together. Why me? What risk did I pose? To whom?

Lady Smith can behave in the way she has behaved – monstering me in the media, acting well beyond her statutory powers as chair of a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, claiming to be a “Supreme Court judge in Scotland” after the date of her retirement; and all without being held to account by anyone. There appears to be a big problem in Scotland. The senior judiciary (including retirees like Lady Smith and Lord Hardie) appear to be unaccountable to anyone or to any authority¹⁴. With Lady Smith as the prime example, some behave as if the law does not apply to them at all. Lord Carloway too. The Lord President of the Court of Session. He, however, has said:

“Until such time as it’s demonstrated that there is corruption within the Scottish judiciary, I’m entirely satisfied that there is no requirement for a register of interests and that it would be positively detrimental to the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the recruitment of judges and especially at the higher level of the judiciary¹⁵.”

That time has arrived.

I’ve learned from my own experience that even if you have a sound case in law against the likes of Lady Smith, you will not succeed. Dunlop has told me as much. In a disciplinary Dean’s Direction dated 31st August 2022. Now that’s not because of the law. It’s because of the lawyers. Including the judges. It’s simply because you won’t be allowed to succeed. That’s corruption. Setting up a person on fabricated criminal charges and then monstering the person in the media by making it appear to the general public that the person is a child sexual abuser takes the corruption to a new level. That’s where we are in Scotland. A child abuse inquiry that is reluctant to name prolific paedophiles, yet which is apparently only too keen to portray an opponent, an “enemy,” or a threat, as implicated in child sexual abuse when such an implication is entirely false. And they know it.

I understand that most law-abiding people will have great difficulty in believing that there could be corruption at the top of the Scottish judiciary. I’m genuinely surprised and perturbed to discover its existence and its extent. And no one appears to be prepared to challenge it. The structures that are in place foster and reinforce that approach. If you challenge those in control, you’ll lose. If you continue to challenge, you’ll lose everything. They’ll even candidly tell you that. They’ve told me that. You’ll see how and when later. But if you cooperate, turn a blind eye, get on with the task in hand, and make yourself the “right” appointee. Then you’ll be trusted. And rewarded.

I know very many lawyers and judges in Scotland whose honesty is not in question in any way. The othering process forces good people to be passive in the face of injustice. Relieved that it’s not them.

Scotland is a small country. A small legal jurisdiction. Lawyers and others in Scotland regularly claim that the Scottish legal system is admired and envied by other jurisdictions the world over. I think someone once said it. Maybe in the 19th century. But definitely not now. I don’t see other jurisdictions rushing to copy what Scotland is doing. The Scottish legal system has become somewhat insular. Quirky. Resistant to evidence-based change. Important changes are often misguided and/or contrary to scientifically demonstrated evidence.

One current example relates to the sentencing of young people under 25. Developmental science is said to have been the primary consideration in fashioning the new guidelines. Of course, it’s correct to emphasise that rehabilitation should be a primary consideration when sentencing young people. But the new guidelines have caused justified public concern because of the unacceptable consequences in the disposals of violent and sexual crimes (see, for example¹⁶). Developmental issues in relation to children and young people who are accused and convicted of crimes would be better to be anchored in law, in the terms already provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There exists a coherent scientific consensus which demonstrates that children and young people are developmentally disadvantaged in forensic communications with adults in authority in criminal justice systems. The scientific consensus would be better employed in ensuring that investigation and trial processes and procedures address the developmental disadvantages and deficits suffered by children and young people prior to conviction. This approach to ensuring that the law and its procedures are developmentally appropriate would help to ensure that children’s and young people’s rights are properly given effect to and protected. Also, those children and young people who ought not to be convicted would be better placed for acquittal. You don’t need to rehabilitate someone who’s lawfully and properly acquitted.

The sentencing guidelines stuff is just one example of these very powerful, unaccountable, sometimes misguided judges effectively changing the way the law operates. They’re not elected. This isn’t democracy. And they’re wrong. They have changed the effective operation of the law to the detriment of victims and contrary to the public interest. And all because they’ve misapplied the scientific knowledge about brain development in young people. It’s not the science that’s at fault. It’s the somewhat misguided way it’s being used. But the underlying tendency is to appropriate greater and greater powers to an unaccountable judiciary at the top. They are apparently eager to dispense with juries and replace them with single-judge determinations. To change important aspects of the law of evidence by judicial decision-making rather than legislation. To close down and punish whistleblowers and those who criticise. The proximity of relationships among key actors is an obvious problem. Lord Carloway steadfastly refuses to agree to a meaningful register of judicial interests. They call it judicial independence. They dress it up as related to the rule of law. Oh, and they’ve raised the retirement age to 75. The system needs their unique talent for longer. It’s not the rule of law. It’s the rule of lawyers.

Another manifestation of this judicial power grab has been enunciated very recently. In Kirkwood v Thelem Assurances [2023] CSIH 30, 23^rd July 2023, Lord President Carloway made new law providing that only Scottish solicitors should be permitted to conduct litigation in Scotland in the following pronouncement:

“Decision

[29] It is important that litigation in Scotland is: (a) conducted by those whom the court has authorised to do so; and (b) subject to the expenses regime which the court has devised.

The former is concerned with not only the efficiency of the system; that is that, causes are conducted by those fully conversant with Scots law and procedure. It is also to ensure that those conducting it are subject to the disciplinary rules either exercised by the court itself of delegated by the court to the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland¹⁷.”

In the context of what is written in this text, I invite you to note that the Judicial Office for Scotland informed Russell Findlay MSP in January 2023 that Lord Hardie is not subject to its disciplinary procedures or regime because he is a retired judge. Lady Smith, and others chairing public inquiries in Scotland, are retired judges too. Lord Hardie is described as an “ex-judge.” Lady Smith is described as a “Supreme Court judge in Scotland.” These people are beyond the disciplinary regime considered by the Lord President to be so important. The rules are only for some. The rule of lawyers. Not the rule of law.

Apart from its resistance to scientific, evidence-based procedures, the Scottish legal system is manned by a relatively small body of lawyers and judges in comparison with other, larger jurisdictions with bigger populations. The pool of people at the top of the judiciary and legal profession is very small indeed. In that situation, it’s critically important to ensure that there is structural integrity to guarantee objective and impartial decision-making. I emphasise the need for structural integrity. Structural integrity might usefully be contrasted with personal integrity. Of course, personal integrity is vital. But it is not sufficient to guarantee objective and impartial decision-making. Personal integrity differs from person to person.

The proximity of longstanding personal and professional relationships can be problematic in such a small legal system. Claiming that particular individuals are “incorruptible” is not sufficient to guarantee the necessary objectivity and impartiality (see Dunlop’s pronouncement on the subject¹⁸).

This is especially the case where there are known personal relationships between important actors and decision-makers in the prosecution and/or court system, especially right at the top. The obvious illustration is the proximity of relationship between the present Lord Advocate and the senior judiciary. This is a separate and distinct issue from the Lord Advocate’s constitutional conflict of interest as “independent” head of Scotland’s prosecution system; but, at the same time, a Scottish Government cabinet member. The present Lord Advocate’s husband is Lord Turnbull. Lord Turnbull is a judge of the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session. Necessarily close to the Lord President in the development of the policy and administrative aspects of the law. The Lord Advocate has both criminal and civil responsibilities and competencies. Some of the circumstances which I highlight and found on below demonstrate the weaknesses and difficulties with the proximity of relationships in a small legal system. It’s not just the Lord Advocate’s connections, of course. The longstanding close personal and professional relationship between the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk is well-known. One analytical model that might be used to test the proximity of relationships in such a small, gossip-ridden legal system is the “dinner table” test. If actors, authorities, and decision-makers, including judges, sit daily at the same dinner table as others, then that may indicate uncomfortable, or problematic, proximity, which might appear to undermine the guarantee of objective, impartial, policy and decision-making. And if it’s the breakfast, lunch, and supper tables, too, then the problem might be more acute.

At the outset, I expressed concern about the stench of corruption. Once you’ve got it in your nostrils in relation to the integrity of judicial decision-making in a small system, with problems of proximity of individuals, you can smell it in many other situations. Proximity of relationships between important decision-makers makes that stench stronger. Especially after inexplicable, or even odd, judicial determinations (See BBC v Lady Smith [CSIH] 2022 5¹⁹).

The Inner House judgement in BBC v Lady Smith provides a snapshot of how the rule of lawyers, rather than the rule of law, is sustained and perpetuated. This is explained more fully in Chapter 13.

1 https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dunblane-gunman-regular-visitor-elite-27095177

2https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/fornethy-the-fairbairn-connections

3https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blackford-i-was-right-to-name-abuser-zplp9ds08

4https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/inner-house-rules-chair-of-scottish-child-abuse-inquiry-acted-ultra-vires-in-restricting-publication-of-legal-claims

5https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/decision-to-drop-goodwillie-case/

6https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-goodwillie-glasgow-united-podcast_ interview-anything-goes_james-english-2023-jbm2wflc5

7https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=d22e28a7_8980-69d2-b500-
ff0000d74aa7

8https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default_source/cos_general_docs/pdf-docs_for-opinions/2017csih72.pdf?sfvrsn=71512ad2_0

9https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-child-abuse-inquiry-accused-28684548

10https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fr5sh8

11https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-chief-prosecutor-lord-hardie-should-have-told-police-about-sex-abuse-mz0590j2f

12https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/boss-tram-inquiry-scooped-more-30293281

13https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19715693.neil-mackays-big-read-snp-activist-willie-mcraes-death-state-sanctioned-murder-says-ex-police-officer

14https://archive.news.stv.tv/politics/1438215-judging-for-ourselves-if-court-rulers-have-conflict-of-interest.html

15https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lord-carloway-to-be-questioned-by-justice-committee-over-judicial-interests-register

16https://news.sky.com/story/sean-hogg-and-the-guidelines-for-sentencing-under-25s-in-scotland-12868279

17https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2023csih30.pdf?sfvrsn=c5cd17b6_1

18https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1659231596405309447?s=20

19https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csih5.pdf?sfvrsn=a7a50f23_1

The forgotten holiday: Oblitus Feriatum.

In this chapter, I’m going to tell you about the weeks before I was arrested. You’ll see that it was an open secret in some circles that I was going to be arrested. This chapter describes what happened between late 2022 and February 2023.

John Glover had been writing his series of articles in the Scottish Daily Express featuring my Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019, the Magic Circle material, and other related stuff. The articles began in about October to November 2022 and went on after Christmas into January 2023. So, these issues were kicking about and were fairly high profile in the Scottish media.

Russell Findlay MSP asked a series of parliamentary questions of the relevant SNP Ministers, mainly of the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP. One of the questions was about my Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019. He was really trying to get some leverage in relation to questions about Hardie, allegations about him, and the Edinburgh Trams Inquiry, which Hardie has been chairing since it began in 2013.

Ruth Charteris KC, the Solicitor General for Scotland, replied to a question about the Note to effect that, since the Note and its contents were under investigation by COPFS, it wasn’t possible to make any comment or give substantive reply to the question. I had reported the Note to Graham Fraser, Procurator Fiscal for the Scottish Borders Area, on 3rd May 2019. This fact is referred to in my Public Statement dated 3rd May 2019. You can see it as my pinned tweet on my Twitter handle @AdvocateHalley. Graham had reported it direct to Crown Office. I had a discussion with Graham about its contents. Graham Fraser is a decent man and an able and fair prosecutor. He’s appeared before me many times when I’ve been the Sheriff. I worked from his office when I was a prosecutor in the mid-2000s in order to access the Crown Office intranet. He’s even helped me to conduct a prosecution of Goldilocks with the Selkirk Cubs in November 2015. He categorised the Note’s contents as material for investigation in relation to corruption. That is an accurate assessment of the contents of the Note, as far as I’m concerned. The Lord President knows about, and has had a copy of, the Note since I sent it to him on 30th July 2019. He has taken no action in relation to its contents. Indeed, he has presided over a civil appeal in BBC v Lady Smith, in which the Note featured. There is the demonstrable corruption he was proposing as a necessary prerequisite in his speech about the judicial register of interests¹. The Note is produced later in this book.

The point is that Crown Office has had the Note since early May 2019. Lady Smith and the SCAI have had it since 1st April 2019. The Lord President has had it since 30th July 2019 in circumstances that I’ll explain later. Dean of Faculty Gordon Jackson, KC, and Vice Dean Angela Grahame, KC, were sent the Note by me in May 2019. I was told, from reliable sources, including a solicitor acting in the case, that the Note was an agreed production in the Judicial Review application by the BBC against Lady Smith in 2020-2022. It’s been seen by Swinney when he was DFM. It’s been seen by two Deans of the Faculty of Advocates, Jackson and Dunlop. By two Vice Deans, Grahame and Renucci. Although Dunlop can’t remember it, as you’ll see later on. It’s been seen by two Lord Advocates and two Solicitors General. Many journalists and politicians have seen it. All agree its contents are important and explosive, except those who pretend it doesn’t exist. It has never been officially acknowledged or commented upon, even though it clearly falls within the terms of reference of the SCAI. Lady Smith and the groupthink maintain that the SCAI’s terms of reference don’t include the trafficking of children in care. This is nonsense. It’s a really curious position to adopt, and that’s being generous.

Why, for example, were the Met investigating the use of Hardie’s bank accounts when they were far from home in East Lothian and Edinburgh in 1996? They were investigating allegations about the organised trafficking of young people in care. Read the Note.

Also, Fornethy House, Perthshire². Thousands, maybe up to 30,000, of women aged about 45 and older insist that when they went there as children for respite from hard-pressed homes in Glasgow housing schemes in the 1960s to 1980s, they were put into party dresses and taken to parties where they were sexually assaulted by “gentlemen.” The wee girls were told to bring their party dresses with them, for goodness sake. This was organised trafficking of children for sex. And Guess what? Lady Smith and the groupthink insist the Fornethy House women don’t come within the SCAI’s terms of reference. It was only respite care. One woman I spoke to was only there twice in her life, for two periods of two weeks at a time, once when she was six and once when she was thirteen. But the experiences of being sexually abused while in the care of Glasgow’s local authority at Fornethy House for those four weeks have shaped her whole life. This was the trafficking of wee girls for sexual exploitation. Thousands of them, in an organised operation that operated uninterrupted for decades. And it’s not to be investigated. Whether or not prosecutions of individuals are attempted by COPFS is entirely irrelevant. The Fornethy House survivors fall within the SCAI’s terms of reference.

I went to Glasgow and spoke to a group of survivors from Fornethy on 22nd January 2023. I spoke for about an hour and did my best to answer their questions afterwards. I simply tried to be encouraging of their efforts to try to secure justice for the abuse that they suffered as children. I emphasised the need for a properly trauma-informed method for eliciting free narrative recall accounts from survivors of child sexual abuse. I told them something about the empirical evidence base and how that exercise should be approached. Some survivors told be about their experiences of giving evidence to SCAI. These accounts were concerning.

Anyway, back to Russell Findlay’s parliamentary questions. In answer to Russell Findlay’s parliamentary question about the Note, Charteris answered that its contents were under investigation. For that reason, she was unable to answer any questions about it. As far as I know, that was untrue when it was said. I’d never been contacted by anyone about the Note. If its contents were under investigation then, or beforehand, that would have been the very first step, a sensible person might think. Apart from attempting to join the obvious dots first. Such as asking the people who were in relevant positions at the relevant times when they would certainly have known about relevant matters.

Findlay and Mark Macaskill, then of the Sunday Times, agreed and were interested. Macaskill was convinced that the statement by Charteris that an investigation was ongoing gave sufficient information to press the issue of Hardie’s alleged conduct as detailed in the Note. Macaskill was also sure that he could persuade the Sunday Times to print the allegations about Hardie, which are detailed for investigation in the Note. The public interest in establishing the truth was the overwhelming factor in the particular circumstances.

Macaskill kept me informed about the Sunday Times’ preparations for printing Lord Hardie’s name as a person alleged to have sexually abused Susie Henderson when she was a wee girl. This allegation is mentioned in my Note, but it’s clearly out with the terms of reference for SCAI. The Note is more concerned with Hardie’s involvement with a boy in care, in whose unit I worked as a Residential Social Work Night Care Officer in 1996. This was the allegation related to the time when Hardie was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and just months prior to his appointment as Tony Blair’s Lord Advocate in June 1997. You can read about it in the Note.

Macaskill and the Sunday Times people worked together with Russell Findlay to coordinate an article for publication on Sunday, 22nd January 2023. There was regular contact from both during the week before, by phone and by email. They carried out necessary preparations, such as ensuring an affidavit was requested and obtained from Susie Henderson detailing the allegations she insists in about Hardie. We were all confident that there was no basis for a defamation claim. Even if one was brought by Hardie, it could be comfortably resisted on the evidence as the truth. There’s also a public interest defence available now in Scotland. Macaskill repeatedly emphasised that he thought he would get the article “over the line,” this time, to publication. We’d discussed a similarly focused article before, way back in 2019.

Then, at about 9 pm on Friday, 20th January 2023, I got a phone call from Jason Allardyce, Deputy Editor of the Sunday Times Scotland. He explained that, after careful consideration with input and advice from their lawyers, the newspaper had decided not to name Hardie after all. He told me it was the Cliff Richard case that influenced the decision heavily. I couldn’t, and still can’t, see how that outrageous invasion of Cliff Richard’s right to privacy and family life (involving a helicopter filming live a police search of his home) could have any bearing on the credible and longstanding allegations that have been made about Hardie, a public figure in the legal establishment. The public interest clearly favoured printing. The public interest element here is a powerful and decisive factor, given Hardie’s continued position of influence in the legal establishment. Susie Henderson has already been accepted by a jury as credible and reliable in relation to her evidence about having been sexually abused around the same time by Hardie’s Devil and friend, John Watt. It’s clear from what she has said in the public domain that there is still another man who sexually assaulted her. He is still working in the legal system³. And, as I now know, those considerations about the presumption of innocence and what happened to Cliff Richard didn’t apply to me! The net effect was that Hardie protected yet again. The article they ran was much more timid and circumspect than we had planned⁴.

On Thursday, 26th January 2023, I was visited at home, without prior warning or arrangement, by two detectives from Police Scotland. The lead officer identified himself as Detective Sergeant John Macleod. He was more than slightly over-familiar. The other guy was silent throughout, and I think the poor handwriting on the card they left details his name as Detective Constable McCann. Macleod told me they’d travelled from Livingston to take a statement from me in relation to my Note. So, I was a potential witness for their purposes. He explained that this was thought necessary following the publication of recent articles by “your friends in the press.” I told him that I assumed there had been extensive investigation already, given that the Note had been reported to Crown Office in May 2019. Macleod was immediately touchy about my comment. They were clearly familiar with the Note and its contents. He said that he wouldn’t be telling me anything about what had been investigated. He made another reference to my “friends in the press.” It seemed that the media articles by Glover and Macaskill may have riled someone. Macleod certainly appeared to be irked. I did wonder why, even then. At that stage, Macleod didn’t tell me if he was attached to any particular team. I understood them to be part of a Major Investigations Team. Subsequently, I discovered from my own research that Macleod and McCann are part of an investigation team based at Livingston, which services the SCAI. This connection, and line of communication, caused me concern for obvious reasons. That stench again.

Macleod was also keen to emphasise that taking a statement would take some time. I got the impression he was telling me that as a disincentive for starting it that day. I kept them at the door. I told them that I’m keen to give a statement about the Note and related matters. I said I wanted any statement I’d give to be video recorded. This is for accuracy. I’ve seen police witness statements that bear little resemblance to what the witness actually said. Often it’s carved out in the interviewer’s handwriting and in the interviewer’s words, based on the interviewer’s understanding of what the witness has said. I’ve written a book chapter for an international publication on that subject⁵.

I’ve written the first detailed, publicly available formulation of the Scottish police interviewing model, the PRICE Model. There’s a lot of psychological research about investigative interviewing. The lawyers and judges haven’t a clue at all about science-based investigative interviewing. They don’t think it’s a thing. It’s their typical, insular attitude. If the Criminal Appeal Court thinks what’s happened is fair, based on previous cases, that’s it. End of story. There are some real howlers that are still regarded as good law on police interviews in Scotland. Luke Mitchell is an obvious example. The police interviews with Mitchell were shocking. He was 15. And there may be a perception that they’re never going to be properly revisited by a Lord Advocate who’s the wife of the trial prosecutor. Or by a court in which he’s one of the main players. Read my Researchgate chapter. It’s in there. The Luke Mitchell case lingers in the news even as I write, on 22nd July 2023.⁶

The content and detail of training in the PRICE Model are probably just a distant memory for Macleod. It would have been a course he had to attend when he became a detective constable. Refresher training is a rarity. Macleod told me that video recording of any statement I gave couldn’t be done as he didn’t know of any facility that could accommodate it. I said it could be done, and I knew where. I explained that I knew there was a specialised child interviewing unit near my home in Galashiels. I knew this because I taught the interviewers based there, cops and social workers, on the Scottish Child Interview Model at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan. I’d been meaning, since June 2022, to take up their offer and go and visit the unit at Eildon View, Galashiels. Macleod said he’d look into it. We agreed that if it could be arranged to video record a statement there, then it could be done on Thursday, 2nd February 2023. That date suited all three of us. It was only a week away. I made sure they had my number in case any problem arose.

I was surprised and suspicious of Macleod and McCann. The stench was definitely around.

On Monday, 30th January 2023, I missed a call from Police Scotland. When I tried to call back, it seemed to be a generic line, so I didn’t try again. I thought no more of it until Macleod left a message on my phone on Wednesday, 1st February 2023. I called him back. He told me that he had tried to call me earlier in the week.

He told me that he had “forgotten” he was going on holiday on Thursday, 2nd February 2023. I was immediately suspicious. But I didn’t know why. I was just a potential witness. A whistleblower. Macleod’s whole manner, approach, conversation, and agenda disturbed me from the outset. Anyway, I suggested to him that he should phone me when he returned to work on Thursday, 16th February 2023. We could make arrangements for a video-recorded statement then. It would be interesting to see if Macleod actually did go on holiday on those dates. After all, it takes time to organise the effective “lockdown” of regional police headquarters, Hawick.

So Thursday, 16th February 2023, was the next date on which we’d make arrangements for me to give a statement about the Note.

Macleod and McCann didn’t get back to me until Thursday, 23rd February 2023, at 12.10 hours. They arrived at my home again, unannounced. They’d come all the way from Livingston again. I’ll tell you about this after I’ve told you about the arrest.

1https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lord-carloway-to-be-questioned-by-justice-committee-over-judicial-interests-register

2https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/fornethy-the-fairbairn-connections

3https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/victim-says-another-abuser-is-still-working-in-legal-system-prpjthsdf

4https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/investigation-revealed-into-legal-figures-accused-of-child-abuse-x8d3vl3vp

5https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363044273_ Structured_Models_for_Police_Interviewing_UK_and_Norway-_PEACE_PRICE_KREATIV

6https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23 669086.true-crime-jodi-jones-killer-boyfriend-luke-mitchell-doubt_theory/?ref=ebln&nid=1220&u= 681698b02d2e723b8edb75171727f37d&date=220723.

“Only four senior police officers know anything about this.”

I’m going to tell you something now about my arrest and how it came about, as far as I know. It was really traumatic, so you’ll need to bear with me. In my mind, I’ve never been a person who was going to have his house raided and be arrested. I’m an Advocate and a part-time judge. I haven’t committed any crime. That’s still true.

This was a frightening and awful experience not just for me but for my family. It’s had a traumatic and lasting impact on all of us. We watch the clock until 8.30 am has passed every single morning.

On 15th February 2023, at 8.30 am precisely, two different detectives appeared at my front door. They identified themselves and asked if they could come in. They were based at my local police station in Galashiels. Borders cops. They said something about it being better if they could come indoors as I wouldn’t know the reason for their visit. I’d been up early and working on a draft manuscript at the kitchen table. I invited them in and took them through to the kitchen. It did strike me as odd, as I made my way through with them, that this was the day before Macleod was supposed to get back to me about a date for a video-recorded statement about the Note.

When we got into the kitchen, I sat back down at the table in front of my laptop. I was then informed by Detective Sergeant Jamie Gilmore that I was under arrest and that the matter related to allegations of sexual offences. I was silently shocked. And frightened. I immediately thought of the advice and caution given to me by my friend Trond Myklebust on a visit to Oslo in 2018. Trond is an Assistant Chief of Police in Norway. I was discussing the issues involved when I was considering re-engagement with Lady Smith after my cancer. He warned me then that it was very easy to plant child sexual images on IT equipment. He predicted that that was something obvious someone might try. I immediately thought that was what was going to happen. I’ve been worried about it ever since.

My mobile phone was then taken from me. I asked if I was allowed to email several draft chapters of work that I’d been working on for two years. Gilmore watched over my shoulder as I did so. I thought they’d be taking my laptop and all the IT in the house too. I was confident there would be no problems or illegal material on any of it. But I didn’t want to lose access to my hard work. I was also confident that I hadn’t committed any sexual or other offences. I still didn’t know what the allegation related to. But I was very disturbed by what was unfolding in my home, with my family present. I thought it was a complete setup, which it was.

I was told that more detectives would be coming. A further six duly arrived and were let in. Overkill. They looked almost apologetic, crowding the hallway. All very, very odd. All very planned by someone. Not by them, it appeared. One woman even asked to use the toilet. While executing a search warrant.

I asked if I could go upstairs and tell my wife what was happening. I was allowed to, but only with Gilmore right behind me. As if I was some kind of threat. In my own house. My wife was in the shower. My daughter was getting ready to go out. Very oddly and awkwardly, making her way through a crowd of six idle detectives standing in our hall. Again, shocking.

When all were downstairs, and I was still sitting in the kitchen with Gilmore and his largely silent Northern Irish colleague, under arrest, a “search” was conducted under a warrant which was shown to me. I didn’t read the warrant, but I wish I had. I was extremely anxious by this stage. I wish I’d seen who granted it and where. I wish I’d had the presence of mind to see who had signed it. As I now know, someone who didn’t care to analyse the need for corroboration of crucial facts. In Livingston? The “search” was very unusual. This was the most targeted and planned search I’ve ever known of. It wasn’t so much a search as a race to exactly where in my house they knew they were going. The detectives knew exactly which rooms they were going to and exactly what items they were looking for. It was as if they’d been in my house before and knew their way around. It was as if they knew exactly where a tie and a jacket were hanging and where to collect them. It was weird. The particular tie and tweed jacket would never be worn together by me. They were never worn together by me. Weird. Apart from that, my current iPhone and two old iPhones, an old Windows phone, a broken iPad, and some memory sticks, none of which were mine, were all that were taken from me and from my study, where I showed them. There were laptops, desktops, and all sorts in various rooms.

That’s the thing about corruption. Multi-layered and interconnected. Once you’ve experienced it in the legal system, you’ve no idea who is involved and to what extent or how far it goes. The stench. Once you’ve detected it, for sure, you’re very sensitive to it.

Then the cops insisted on being alone in every room in the house. This is what really spooked me and all of my family when we thought about it afterwards. What if the house was bugged? This has been a constant worry since 15th February 2023. Not just for me. For all my family. And what about a plant of evidence on my devices? Child sexual images or something? For the next few weeks, that was our collective preoccupation. The stench. Lingering. And fear. This isn’t the country that you thought you lived in. This is more like what they tell you Putin’s Russia is like.

While I was sitting at the kitchen table, under arrest, I asked Gilmore, “How was the report for arrest generated?” I wanted to use neutral language because I literally had no idea about who, if anyone, might have alleged that I had committed a crime or what brought the cops to our house. I was also very anxious about the possibility of a plant of evidence. Gilmore told me that a complaint had been made by Emma Clark. I almost fell off the chair I was sitting on for reasons I’ll explain later.

Emma O’Meara or Clark is a Sheriff Clerk Depute at Selkirk Sheriff Court. I exchanged numerous consensual but secret between us, iMessage, WhatsApp, emails, and phone calls with her during parts of 2015 and 2016, up until about the end of July 2016. She initiated the exchanges of sexually explicit conversation and images with me and (as she told me) other lawyers and sheriffs. She told me on more than one occasion, she had images of other sheriffs. Against that background, I wondered what, exactly, was coming. What could Emma Clark allege against me that didn’t implicate herself?

At about 10.30 am, I was taken in the back of an unmarked police car from my home by Gilmore and his colleague to Hawick Police Station. Hawick Police Station is the Police Headquarters for the Borders region. It’s a huge complex. A massive building. The unmarked car was driven into a secure compound at the rear of the building, and I was then allowed to get out of one of the rear doors. I was escorted into the building, had my photograph and samples taken, and then charges were put to me. Scary.

I was also told that Hawick Police Station had been “locked down” “because of who you are.” There were no other custodies, witnesses, or other civilians in the building. It had been emptied entirely of its usual business. Now, that must take some planning and preparation to arrange for Hawick Police Headquarters to be closed down for the day. And “because of who you are”? That sort of spooked me. I’m a part-time Sheriff and Advocate who hasn’t worked as one since 28th October 2016. Apart from that, I teach about developmentally appropriate forensic questioning of children. Maybe that’s why Macleod had to go on holiday. So they could arrange to have Hawick Police Headquarters closed down to frighten the hell out of me. Who I am would become clear in the monstering media on the 9th Match 2023. I am Lady Smith’s opponent in litigation and, therefore, fair game for any level of vicious action. I am a person with no rights in the face of Lady Smith’s “supreme” authority. I am othered. I need to be monstered.

I’m not that important. Except, what makes me a bit unique, maybe, is that I’ve been doing quite a lot of what you might call whistleblowing. About judges, lawyers, trafficking, and organised child sexual abuse. And asserting my disability discrimination rights. Is that what they meant? It’s that stench of corruption thing.

Confuzzled conundrums as everyone was so nice and kind to me. It was as if they knew I was being set up and felt sorry for me. Not like any police custody procedure that I’d ever seen, and I’ve seen and led evidence about many.

One thing that was very, very strange was that the cops seemed almost apologetic. Not engaged with the task or with the evidence. As if they were implementing someone else’s work and plan. It had all been meticulously planned. But it was executed by local Galashiels-based cops. As it turns out, reporting to the PF at…Livingston. And not Selkirk? I smelled the stench. Strongly. That’s unusual. Livingston happens to be where Macleod and McCann are based. In the “National Historical Child Abuse Investigation Team.” Reporting to? Lady Smith and SCAI. In the same building as the PF. That’s who I am. I’m the person who’s to be defined in the mass media by where I stand in relation to Lady Smith. I didn’t know that until 9th March 2023.

Gilmore asked all the “questions” during the interview. Most of them were assertions. He read them from a pre-prepared script. It was a typed script. This is very unusual in my considerable experience of police interviews. He didn’t depart from the script at all. His delivery was so clunky that I wondered whether he had prepared the questions. There didn’t seem to be any engagement by either of the detectives with the evidence they were supposed to have assessed. Or were the questions prepared by someone else? I was asked about alleged images, dates, messages, and events. It was suggested to me that I became attracted to Emma Clark in 2016. Then I bombarded her with a series of explicit texts and images on the 9th and 10th of August 2016. I wasn’t shown any images or messages at all. That was weird. I haven’t seen a transcript or recording of the interview since 15 February 2023. My answer generally was “no comment,” sometimes delivered with slightly detectible emotional affrontery at what was being asserted. Gilmore’s very pleasant and gentle colleague didn’t say a word. He simply didn’t appear to be engaged in the interview process at all. It was as if he was just there to be present or to observe. He wasn’t busy taking notes or reminding Gilmore of aspects of evidence. As I’ve told you, I’ve written about Police Scotland’s PRICE Model of investigative interviewing that Gilmore and colleague were required to follow. In relation to the lead and second interviewer, the PRICE Model teaches as follows:

“13.3.7. Further focus in the PRICE training

Following focus on the model and common interviewing challenges, such as formulation of current hypotheses and questions, common interviewing errors are highlighted such as: lack of preparation; ‘attitude to burst people’; negative comments such as, “This is your only chance to tell us…”; oppressive tone and body language; lack of time; and lack of plan for the interview.

Finally, interviewers are taught that it is essential to carefully consider the role of each of the two interviewers who are required to conduct each suspect interview. Both must work as a team in compiling the interview plan, and in deciding tactics for the interview such as who will be the first (lead) and second interviewer. It is said to be essential that every interview must be led by one interviewer with the other taking notes and it is considered good practice for the lead interviewer to ask the second interviewer at intervals during the interview if there is anything to add. Interview notes are submitted as an evidential production and must be clear, concise, and accurate. The importance of the role of the second interviewer is emphasised as is the need for an agreed sign to use in case anything has been missed so that it can be discussed prior to concluding the interview. The second interviewer’s notes must be in order in the event of equipment failure.¹”

It appeared to me that neither interviewer was fully engaged with the subject matter or with the evidence I was being asked about. And the line about “this is your chance to tell us your side of the story” was used.

After the interview, I was charged. I hadn’t had a proper opportunity at that stage to process and assess the evidence and what was put to me. However, once I’d done that later on over the next few days, it was obvious to me that there wasn’t sufficient evidence in law to charge me. I strongly suspect that the decision to charge, the analysis of the evidence, and the interview questions themselves, were all formulated by someone else other than the cops who interviewed me. Someone other than the detectives who were representing to me that this was a case in which they had received a complaint which they had been responsible for investigating. I strongly suspect it to be untrue that these cops had received a complaint from Emma Clark, had had her phone analysed, and had prepared the interview questions and charges which were put to me.

I was then released on an undertaking to appear at Livingston Sheriff Court on 2nd March 2023. As a condition of that undertaking, I was informed that I wasn’t permitted to enter a village in the Scottish Borders. I wasn’t aware that Emma Clark lived in that village prior to that information being given to me. Is this how the police deal with real victims’ location information? In any event, as I found out very soon afterwards, Emma Clark was, by then, travelling to Selkirk every working day. Much closer to where she’s likely to run into me than where she lives. Fear and alarm? I don’t think so. I was subsequently released from the undertaking, and its conditions, by letter from the PF at Livingston dated 27^th April 2023.

Gilmore and his colleague drove me home after I’d been released. They were friendly and chatting in the car on the way back. They were keen to assure me that only four very senior Police Scotland officers knew about my arrest. That wasn’t the truth either. Campbell Deane knew about it in December 2022. It doesn’t add up anyway. If that was true, the report would’ve had to be made to the PF at Selkirk. There had to have been a reason why the report was being made to the PF in Livingston. I strongly suspected that it was “because of who I am.” I suspected that Macleod’s team in Livingston, or others with links to Lady Smith and SCAI, were involved.

I was asking the cops if they knew police officers whom I’d taught on the JII course at Tulliallan. They did. They thought one colleague was a very excellent child forensic interviewer to a level they’d never witnessed before. I agree. Out of their league. I taught her.

On arrival home, I was greeted at the door by my family. They all expected me to come in and tell them I’d been set up for something I hadn’t done. Instead, I had to explain that I’d been set up, on specific, untrue, fabricated allegations and evidence, in relation to things which were in no way, and to no extent, criminal conduct. As you can imagine, days and weeks of acute family trauma followed. I suspect that was the plan all along. To destroy me and my family. To isolate me from all support, including the support of my family. Utterly callous and cruel.

On 23rd February 2023, Macleod and McCann turned up at my house again at 12.10. I mentioned this at the end of the previous chapter. Their visit was unannounced, and they didn’t contact me in advance. I’ve narrated what was said later on. I got the impression that Macleod was trying to intimidate me. He was asking me if I “still want” to make a statement about the Note. I took it as an implicit threat that there might be more to follow if I did. I said I was keen to make a statement and I’d let them know when I was able to do that. I emphasised I’d get in touch with Macleod. I gave him a contact number, and he had my email address.

He opened with his knowledge of what had happened last week. My arrest. How did, or should, he know about that, I wondered? He also finished by telling me that I’d not be able “to teach at the college” anymore. A reference to my pro bono work at Tulliallan. A sanction. I wondered if he’d been told about my brief and informal conversation with Gilmore and his partner on the way home after the arrest. This sanction was being imposed by detectives in relation to whom I’m supposed to be a witness. Detectives from a team that works with Lady Smith and SCAI. The stench. It was then the penny dropped. Being required to give a statement to Macleod and McCann was likely to facilitate the evidence being fed into the SCAI. That way, Lady Smith gets to be the judge of its accuracy, credibility, and reliability. And mine. There’s no way that’s going to happen. Not ever. How did they know about the arrest? Why were they intimating a sanction or consequence as a result of the arrest? Why was I being asked if I still wanted to make a statement? Why wouldn’t I? Was this a threat? Articulated by police officers associated with the SCAI?

I was so concerned that Macleod and his team, with SCAI connection, were involved in setting me up that I phoned Macleod the next day, 24th January 2023. I recorded the conversation. I recapped on all that had been discussed the previous day. I made it clear that I’d revert to him when I was ready to make a statement. He said something about the Note being “99% historical, it had all been dealt with in the past, and it was a re-visit”. A pre-determined view. Confirmation bias. He also said something even more concerning about his imminent retirement and how maybe he’d be allowed to come back and hear what I had to say about the Note and related matters, even if he’d retired. Weird. As if it’s just some old story. And as if I’d ever be giving a statement about that material to some randomer who was no longer a police officer. The stench was absolutely overpowering. It was compounded by his team’s apparent connection with Lady Smith and SCAI. He referred to “your Note into the Inquiry.” He appeared to be very familiar with the Inquiry. The SCAI.

We left matters on the clear and agreed understanding that I would get back in touch with Macleod’s team if and when I was prepared to give a statement about the Note. Macleod was at pains to emphasise that there was no pressure of time for me to do so.

After 24th February 2023, Macleod has repeatedly approached me in a manner that I reasonably regard as intimidatory. Despite the clear agreement that I’d contact him, I received this email, headed “Operation Coriaday,” six weeks later on 4th April 2023:

“OFFICIAL

Morning Mr Halley.

When we spoke in February you asked that we delay the taking of your statement. I was just contacting you to confirm that this is still the case and to say that if your position changes at any point, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Many Thanks

John

John Macleod

Detective Sergeant

National Child Abuse Investigation Unit,

Specialist Crime Division

West Lothian Civic Centre

Howden South Road

Livingston EH54 6FF”

I didn’t reply to the email immediately. It was the week before Easter. On 10th April 2023, Easter Monday holiday, Macleod sent two detectives to my home. I wasn’t at home. The detectives came from Galashiels. Two female officers. One of them said, “Is this where John stays, John Halley?” She then said, “I’ve got a number for him to phone. It’s from police up in Livingston. I don’t know if you know if he’s aware of it or anything. So I’ll give you that [a card] and there’s a contact number. I’m not sure what it’s about. And he’s just to give the DS a ring up, if that’s ok?” They left a card telling me to please contact DS John Macleod. He had my phone number. He had my email address. This demonstrates that Macleod was sufficiently authoritative, and felt free, to direct the local Galashiels CID in relation to me. For their purposes, I am the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. So Macleod is in a position to direct the Galashiels cops to act, and they do as they are ordered. They’re not even given information as to why they’re being taken out of their normal scarcely resourced duties and required to conduct a task for Macleod’s team at Livingston. There’s a very strong aroma. Only my wife and daughter were at home. This smacks of intimidation. There was no need to send two detectives to my home. My family are terrified of the police turning up unannounced following what happened on 15^th February 2023. I am a witness as far as Macleod’s involvement is concerned. Power over-reach.

I formed the impression that my arrest was not a normal or typical arrest. It didn’t appear to me to have been based on evidence investigated by the arresting police officers. There was an unusual link to the National Historical Child Abuse Investigation Team based in Livingston. That team services the SCAI. It reports to the PF in Livingston. DS Gilmore reported to the PF in Livingston. In the normal course, Gilmore would have reported to the PF at Selkirk. Then there was Macleod’s uncomfortable approaches to me as a witness. Not as an accused.

Macleod has subsequently contacted me again, in May and June 2023, despite my clear warning that he should not. He alleged he was told to do so by his superiors. He then said that was a typo, and he meant superior, DI Colin Moffat. I’m suspicious. DI Moffat works in a liaison role for SCAI.

In addition to all of that, there have been concerning mixed messages received from the PF in Livingston.

On 12th May 2023, I was advised by my solicitor, after several discussions with the PF, as follows:

“At this time the position appears to be that the complainer has failed to engage properly with the police in the past by providing full statements and has now been somewhat evasive in relation to providing a further statement. The prosecutor has indicated that, come what may, he will be reporting the matter to Crown Counsel at the end of this month. The complainer appears to be somewhat reluctant and may have not furnished the police/prosecutor with all the information they properly require in order to determine whether the public interest requires a prosecution.”

It’ll be immediately obvious that what was being imparted by the PF was that the complainer, Emma Clark, appears to be of questionable credibility and/or reliability from the PF’s perspective. You’ll see immediately that that is completely incongruous with the circumstances of the arrest, the search of my home, and the closing down of Hawick Police Headquarters because of who I am, not to mention proceeding to charge me without corroborated evidence. The stench is overpowering.

And now it’s all to be reported to “Crown Counsel.” A team headed by Dorothy Bain, wife of Lord Turnbull. A team which includes Gavin Dewar and others I have known for a whole career. Serviced and supported in Crown Office by Emma Clark’s husband, among others.

Lady Smith and the groupthink have direct connections to Crown Office too. Look at the twin-pronged SCAI and Crown Office response to the media reporting of Blackford having named Wares in the Commons. There is also a section or team in Crown Office which has been established to liaise with and service the SCAI. The connections are concerning in the circumstances.

A decision was supposed to be taken by the PF by the end of May 2023 in relation to whether or not there was to be any attempted prosecution in the public interest. Now into August 2023, there’s been nothing. No update. It’s impossible to resist the impression that it suits the authorities and the collaborators, Lady Smith, Lord Carloway, and Dunlop, to have the criminal allegations hanging over my head without any actual proceedings having been commenced. With an incredible complainer. Incredible because she’s lying, and they know it. This is what corruption looks like. Dunlop has tried to use the possibility of criminal proceedings as a threat in discussions communicated to me by Andrew Smith KC. With threats to ruin me. What’s the point in threatening what’s already been done? The rule of lawyers.

The silencing of a whistleblower about organised child sexual abuse in Scotland.

1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363044273_Structured_Models_for_Police_Interviewing_UK_and_Norway-_PEACE_PRICE_KREATIV

Living my best life… criminally.

This chapter, and the next, detail what knowledge is available to me in relation to the set-up of a false criminal case against me. It sets out the truth of entirely private communications and consensual exchanges between two adults, which took place in 2015-16. I would never have disclosed this detail unless compelled to do so. I am compelled to do so in order to prevent criminal conduct by Emma Clark, and perhaps others, by perverting the course of justice among other matters. Fabricated sequences from these private communications were produced to police, in 2022-23, along with false criminal accusations. True and accurate detail is set out below. The chapter details that a false impression of the nature of those accusations was then deliberately disseminated and shaped by, or on behalf of, a “judge” in mass media all over the world to ensure maximum impact and damage to me and to my family. This is corruption at work.

The days and weeks immediately after my arrest on 15th February 2023 were really difficult. They were genuinely traumatic. I mean the sort of trauma that visits you with the death of a loved one. I mean that. I’m not exaggerating. That feeling of radical alteration to the way a whole family views the world and the structures around them. No proper sleeping. Sore faces from constant crying. The monsters had put a bomb in my family. In my home. I’m absolutely sure that was their intention. They knew that was the most effective way to hurt me. By hurting my family. By trying their best to alienate my family from me.

From a family point of view, I’d done something wrong. Really wrong. That wreaked havoc, as you can imagine. I’m sure that was their intention.

But the personal stuff is our personal business. From a criminal point of view, I hadn’t done anything wrong at all. I had been completely set up. And, as you’ll see, the set-up had the groupthink’s hallmark all over it: a tiny nugget of fact inflated and blown up to monstering proportions. The monstering swings into action. Just like with Susan O’Brien, but much, much worse. Susan O’Brien, QC, was the initially appointed Chair of SCAI before Lady Smith. Susan was undermined in an expert othering pincer movement by the groupthink. She was then brutally and publicly monstered by them and the Scottish Government. Susan resigned. I’ll tell you about it later.

As the detail of what was alleged by Emma Clark, as put to me by the cops, began to be assessed against my documentary and other records, it became crystal clear that I can demonstrate she’s lying. Never mind raising a reasonable doubt about what was put to me by the cops during the interview on 15th February 2023. I can prove what was put to me didn’t happen. The PF knows that. The Crown knows that. Not because I’ve made any admissible statement. But because I know it’ll have been leaked to them through “friends” and trusted colleagues. Also, in the galaxy of litigation that’s been commenced. I’ll tell you about that later too.

I didn’t, and still don’t, have copies of police statements or a proper, accurate record of the interview under caution. That’s because I haven’t been prosecuted. I’m sure it’s absolutely intentional. If I’d been prosecuted, I’d be entitled to see the case against me. To disclosure of the evidence. But I’m not entitled to that, so I haven’t got it. I haven’t seen Emma Clark’s statements that she didn’t cooperate during. I don’t know exactly what her failure to cooperate means. And just to remind you. I’m a part-time judge. But I have been monstered in the media. And I’m just supposed to remain quiet and worried in this ludicrous, corrupt, Kafkaesque little world that I’m trapped in. And without the detail of what I’m accused of having done.

So, I’m in a permanent state of a kind of limbo. I’m pretty sure that’s their intention. Whoever they are. I can only know them by their works. Per ea quae facta sunt. A united cause of some kind. A Cosa Nostra. But operating in broad daylight in Scotland. Clearly, for the protection of some. Operating at the top of the legal system. And unaccountable to anyone, it seems.

Emma Clark has been prepared, for whatever reason, to fabricate and put together, or allow others to put together, a series of WhatsApp messages and images and allege that they were sent on two days, 9th and 10th August 2016. And that she’d been ‘bombarded’ out of the blue with unwelcome material. Emma Clark is a liar. These are the alleged sexual offences. The subject of the monstering. You’ll see immediately that that has absolutely nothing to do with Lady Smith and SCAI. But it provided the opportunity for Lady Smith and McKendry, the low-life media strategist, to strategically place “child abuse,” “child abuse inquiry,” and “sexual offences, with other innuendo, juxtaposed with my name. And sent out to the world’s mass media. Deplorable.

Emma Clark must’ve had plenty of material to choose from for her fabricated sequence. She and I had been messaging one another secretly on and off between June 2015 and July 2016. We had agreed that we would both delete the images and messages. I did. She obviously didn’t and was now producing and complaining about them seven to eight years later. Isn’t that strange? I wonder what other images she’s kept for that sort of period of time? I mean, images of whom and for what purpose? Or, more accurately, of which lawyers and judges?

It’s very much in the public interest that someone as apparently dangerous as Emma Clark needs to be identified, called out, and stopped. This is a matter of general public interest. I’m setting out some detail here which is merely incidental to the discussion in the public interest. You can’t have a Sheriff Clerk behaving like this repeatedly. And with a number of lawyers and judges. The role of a Sheriff Clerk involves dealing with extremely sensitive materials and issues. And with lawyers and judges.

It goes without saying that exchanging explicit messages like that might be seen as inappropriate. This is an entirely personal matter. It’s definitely not a criminal matter. Our relationship was consensual, private, secret, and in my mind, I had convinced myself was separate.

In June 2015, Emma Clark was in a relationship with her then partner, a Sheriff Clerk at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. She told me, “He bought me shoes,” as an explanation about how they got together. I thought that was a curious comment at the time. But I came to understand what it meant, as you’ll see.

She had an affair with a solicitor during late 2015. She wanted him to leave his wife. But he wouldn’t. So, the relationship ended.

She told me she had started her relationship with her now husband, Graeme Clark, a criminal legal aid solicitor, in about early 2016. She told me she had known him for years. They had a mutual understanding that they might get together at some stage. He had a daughter from a previous relationship, and it was complicated because of that. She was messaging me and speaking to me during parts of these relationships and discussed these matters at length. I could give much more detail like where she would meet each of them and when. She sent me sexually explicit images that she told me she also sent to Graeme Clark and the solicitor with whom she’d been having an affair in late 2015. I was a bit surprised by this.

The cops put to me, as Emma Clark had apparently told them, that I had become attracted to her during 2016. That’s a lie. It’s a lie that seems to be anchored in the date she changed her phone and phone number in early 2016. She sent me her phone number when she changed it in 2016. I can show it was Emma Clark who got back in contact with me at the end of 2015, not the other way around. This was after she’d started her relationship with her now husband. She definitely changed her number after 11th February 2016. Why would she send me her new number if she didn’t want to remain in contact, the same sort of contact we’d been having? She didn’t tell the cops that. She didn’t tell the cops about her previous phone number and communications between us during 2015 at all. And it seems the cops weren’t that keen to find out anyway.

But why would she do that? And why would she take the risk of telling a pack of lies to the cops? If convicted, I’d be shamed and put on the sex offenders’ register, which was probably the goal of the monsters who arranged this. That would be enough to ruin me. Dunlop has said as much to me in writing via Andrew Smith. But Emma Clark? She’d go to jail if convicted of setting me up by fabricating a false sequence of messages and images. High stakes. I assume she was being supported and encouraged in her lies. I don’t know that. Yet. But I’ll find out. Living her best life. I’m told that’s what it says on her social media profile. We’ll see.

This is some of the detail of my exchanges with Emma Clark. Not all. I’ve got plenty more in reserve. But I’ll tell you this. Being prepared to lie to the police makes Emma Clark a dangerous person. To be clear, I never had a physical relationship with Emma Clark at all.

It was Emma Clark who initiated the explicit, sexual, communications and casual exchanges of sexual images, video, and other communications, with me in June 2015. I’ve now recovered some of the previously deleted material. I’ve also got other records which prove lots of other details, some of which I’m going to detail now. There’s also some eyewitness evidence. These exchanges continued for periods of time; and stopped completely for periods of time. Between June 2015 and July 2016, there were breaks from August to December 2015; and from March to May 2016. From June 2015 until after mid-February 2016, Emma Clark’s mobile number was 07XXX XXX745. She didn’t tell the cops about that.

The messaging began when she iMessaged her phone number to me in May 2015, one day when I was sitting as Sheriff in Selkirk Sheriff Court, and she was the clerk. I offered to let her use my parking space in Edinburgh as she said she was going to be working there. She said she couldn’t get a space in the car park at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. I’ve no idea if that’s true. At that time in 2015, she used iMessage to send sexually explicit texts, images, videos, and other communications to me from this number during 2015 and early 2016. This is important. It leaves a detailed trail of evidence. I’ve got numerous calls, messages and other detailed entries on my mobile phone documentation in relation to Emma Clark’s number, 07XXX XXX745. It doesn’t give the detail of the messages. But it shows that there was regular, lengthy communication outside of work.

In early 2016, Emma Clark changed her mobile number to 07XXX XXX279. From about late December 2015, Emma Clark began to communicate with me by WhatsApp messages, images, videos, and other communications sent by that medium. I don’t know why she started using WhatsApp.

Whatsapp messages are end-to-end encrypted. This is to ensure privacy of communications, but it also gives rise to forensic problems associated with unilateral alteration by deletion from and addition to message sequences. Whatsapp messages cannot be retrieved once deleted. It’s different if it’s a group chat because then there’s a record of a broader conversation. The important point is that WhatsApp message records can be unilaterally altered. If there are only two people in the conversation, and one of them has deleted the conversation record, there is no way to ensure that the remaining record is a true and accurate record of the whole exchanges that took place. There’s quite a lot of expert advice out there about the questionable integrity of WhatsApp messages from one source only in the absence of backup on a secure server or medium¹.

Emma Clark regularly repeated the phrase, “I know things.”

On 24th June 2015, Emma Clark sent me a naked image of herself. This was the first explicit image sent. This and others referred to will be detailed in her phone records from that time. I received this image at home during the evening, completely by surprise. I hadn’t consented to receiving this image in advance. Emma Clark messaged that she’d been out running with a friend and was going for a shower. She messaged that she thought I might like to see her photo. The image showed Emma Clark from behind. Taking a “selfie” from over her right shoulder. She’s shown looking into a mirror behind her and holding her iPhone in her left hand. Her face is clearly visible and recognisable. I’m confident that I’ll be able to recover a copy of this image following its original (agreed) deletion. I can also corroborate this with evidence from another person.

Subsequently, Emma Clark told me that she’d sent the same image to her friend she’d been out running with. That friend is a local male solicitor.

On a separate, other occasion, on 8th July 2015, at about 7.20 am, I received a short video clip by iMessage from Emma Clark. An iMessage was attached which read, “Enjoy.” I was on my way, driving, to work in Falkirk Sheriff Court. I stopped my car and phoned Emma Clark to discuss the explicit video clip which she’d sent. She later told me that she’d sent the same video clip to the same male solicitor as before. I can corroborate this.

Emma Clark suggested to me that we should meet on 9th July 2015 at the Premier Inn, Balcarres St, Glasgow. She said she was attending a course at Glasgow Sheriff Court on the 9th and 10th of July 2015. I was staying and working in Glasgow anyway on 9^th to 10^th July 2015. These dates are again verifiable in Scottish Courts training event logs. I was sitting in Glasgow Sheriff Court on 10^th July 2015.

Emma Clark didn’t appear to be there. Eventually, she replied to iMessages and said she was meeting a friend in Glasgow and would be at the Premier Inn later. Her friend, she told me, was a male Solicitor. She returned to the Premier Inn later that evening. At about 8.30 pm, Emma Clark came to my room, where we chatted and enjoyed a couple of glasses of wine. At about 11 pm, she left. Her own room was across the corridor from mine. These details are verifiable. She popped in to my room at about 8.30 am on 10th July 2015. She was ready to leave for her training course at Glasgow Sheriff Court. I was sitting in Glasgow Sheriff Court that day. I can produce Premier Inn receipts and phone documentation.

On 16th July 2015, I met Emma Clark for a coffee at the Melville Inn, Midlothian, at about 4 pm. It was her suggestion. I was travelling home from working in west central Scotland. She’d been working in Edinburgh Sheriff Court. She phoned me and suggested that we should meet for a coffee on the way home. We met two people whom I knew in the Melville Inn as we were leaving together. Both of them recognised me, and we had a brief chat.

Emma Clark omitted to give these, and many other important and relevant details about our relationship and arrangement, to the police in August 2022. If that’s when she spoke to the police. I can only go on what they told me. Emma Clark lied to the police. To set me up. No doubt about that.

In or about January 2016, Emma Clark sent me, without prior warning or agreement, a photo of herself dressed in lingerie. She told me that she’d sent the same image to Graeme Clark, her now husband. I’m confident that I’ll be able to recover that photo. It shows her face. She sent several other sexual images and messages to me by WhatsApp between January and July 2016.

My phone records demonstrate text messaging by iMessage exchanged with Emma Clark on the following dates in 2015:- 2, 3, 4, and 5; 16, 17, 21, 24, and 25 June 2015; and 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 25 July 2015.

We also exchanged messages by iMessage on 22 November 2015 and on numerous other dates in 2015. I’ve recovered some of these.

On five occasions, Emma Clark sent me images of intimate sexual acts in the morning. This was in about late June to July of 2015; and between May to the end of July 2016. These images usually arrived at about 7-7.30 am while I was getting showered and ready for work. These images were always deleted, as I had agreed to do.

I also spoke on the phone and/or exchanged text messages by iMessage with Emma Clark on the following dates in 2015:- 4, 16, and 30 June 2015; and 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 24 July 2015. I have the detailed records.

In addition to the contact already referred to, I spoke on the phone to Emma Clark on at least the following dates in 2016:- 8, 23, 26, and 29 January; 1, 2, and 11 February; 12 May (on Emma Clark’s new number 07XXX XXX279); 7, 8 and 14 July and on other occasions. We also exchanged numerous and regular messages by WhatsApp. These have been deleted by me, as agreed, and can’t be recovered. On 7th July 2016, I spoke to Emma Clark for 17 minutes and 36 seconds by phone. On 8th July 2016, I spoke to Emma Clark for 37 minutes and 1 second by phone. On 18th July 2016, I spoke to Emma Clark for 18 minutes and 36 seconds by phone. In addition, there were numerous WhatsApp exchanges until the end of July 2016.

On 2nd July 2016, Emma Clark and I went together to Harvey Nichols Store, St. Andrew Square, Edinburgh. She had asked me to buy her a handbag. We met at the store at about 10 am. It was a Saturday morning. Emma Clark brought her son with her in a push-chair. We went together upstairs to the department in which designer handbags are sold. Emma Clark chose a Coach handbag, I think. I bought the handbag, and I paid £375 for it. I used HSBC Visa Business Debit Card in my own name to make the purchase. My HSBC Business Bank Account was debited by Harvey Nichols in the sum of £375 on 4th July 2016. I can produce a copy of his HSBC bank statement for August 2016 showing the relevant debit entry on 4th July 2016. I gave the handbag to Emma Clark.

The following month, during the afternoon on 4th August 2016, Emma Clark contacted me by Whatsapp message. She asked me to “pick up” a pair of shoes for her from Harvey Nichols Store in St. Andrew Square, Edinburgh. She said that she was going to a function and wanted new shoes. She told me she was going to the function with Graeme Clark, her now husband. She explained that Jim, the Court Officer at Selkirk Sheriff Court at the time, was supposed to travel to Edinburgh to pick shoes up for her but was now unable to do so. She explained that the shoes she wanted were designer shoes made by Christian Louboutin. She explained that the shoes had trademark red soles. I was working in Edinburgh, and so I was happy to collect her shoes.

I went to Harvey Nichols’ Store and to the department which sold designer shoes. I sent Emma Clark photos by WhatsApp of the shoe display so that she could choose the Christian Louboutin shoes she wanted. Once she had chosen, I bought the Christian Louboutin shoes. I used my Halifax Ultimate Reward Bank Visa card to make the purchase in the sum of £645.05. The sum of £645.05 was debited from Halifax Ultimate Reward Account on 5th August 2016. I arranged to meet Emma Clark at Newtongrange Railway Station during the late afternoon on 4th August 2016. We met where she had already parked on or next to a green electric car parking space next to the platform entrance at Newtongrange Railway Station. I handed the shoes over to Emma Clark. I told her she didn’t need to give me the money for the shoes.

So there was lots of contact between Emma Clark and me. And there’s lots of evidence of it. For her to go to the cops and allege that I bombarded her with explicit images and messages which she didn’t consent to is just malicious lies. I did not send any images or explicit messages to Emma Clark on the 9th and 10th of August 2016. It’s an offence to set someone up in this manner. It’s called perverting the course of justice. I suspect, but I don’t yet know for sure, that someone has put her up to this. I’m keen to see details of who was involved in this. No one is above the law.

1https://www.leap.expert/can-an-archived-chat-on-whatsapp-be-used-as-evidence-in-a-court-of-law/#:~:text=Messages%20sent%20on%20WhatsApp%2C%20or,contents%2C%20time%20stamps%2C%20etc

Find my phone.

It’s really odd that Emma Clark, or whoever fabricated the sequence of WhatsApp messages, also appears to have selected two days, 9th and 10th August 2016, as the days when she says I bombarded her. It’s really weird.

There’s a whole trail of work emails between us on both of those days which contradict what she has alleged to the cops. Or at least what the cops told me she was alleging. It’s as if whoever put the fabricated WhatsApp sequence together was unaware of the work interactions and communications. And that’s an interesting dimension. Lady Smith would be an important witness if there was to be a trial. I’ll tell you why.

As you’ll see from the detail in my narrative about what else was happening at the beginning of August 2016, I was coming under massive pressure from Lady Smith. Lady Smith had taken up appointment as chair of SCAI on 1st August 2016. I was called to a meeting and threatened by her almost immediately. I was also really ill by then. I mean, I couldn’t stay awake during the afternoons. I couldn’t walk up stairs. I had to stop twice when walking up those stairs from the Edinburgh Waverley exit on Market Street up to Cockburn Street on the way up to Parliament House. It was weird. I didn’t know what was wrong with me, but I knew that something was very wrong. And, for sure, I didn’t have the energy to bombard an unwilling recipient with explicit images and messages. On 1^st September 2016, I was assessed in hospital to have a haemoglobin reading of just 76 and required a blood transfusion. I was severely anaemic. The normal range for adult men is about 130-180 g/L.

I was sitting as Sheriff at Selkirk Sheriff Court on 9th August 2016. Emma Clark was my clerk. Communications were normal between us because we always worked quite effectively together. Or so I thought. Emma Clark now alleges she was bombarded with explicit material on the evening of 9th August 2016. It had been a busy, and unusually traumatic, day for me. Yes, I’m telling you that my day, sitting as a Sheriff, had been unusually traumatic. And I’ll show you the evidence to back that up.

The resident Sheriff at Selkirk, Peter Paterson, was sitting that day in the main court in the building. He was dealing with the court’s normal criminal business. It was quite busy. It was unusual for me to be in Selkirk Sheriff Court when the resident Sheriff was there. Normally, I was booked to sit in Selkirk because the resident Sheriff wasn’t available. But there was other business that needed to be dealt with urgently. The main component of this business was three applications by the Children’s Reporter for Interim Compulsory Supervision Orders (ICSOs) for three children, siblings. These are quite urgent and sensitive applications.

Sheriff Paterson was in his normal chambers on the first floor. I was accommodated on the ground floor in a small, inadequate room which was concerningly insecure. I can’t remember if it didn’t have a lock or whether the lock was broken. Anyway, insecure. I arrived, as usual, with my Scottish Courts laptop, which I plugged into the Scottish Courts intranet. I also had my normal mobile phone, an iPhone, with me. It was in my court jacket pocket, and on silent mode. So, it was with me all the time. This was normal practice. In addition to that phone, I had my SCAI Blackberry. This was Scottish Government issue IT equipment given to all the senior SCAI team way back in November or so 2015. I had this with me in case anyone had to contact me from SCAI.

After lunch, at 2 pm, I had to go back into the hearing room to continue hearing the applications. I left my Blackberry and my laptop on the desk when I went to the hearing room on the ground floor to hear the child-related applications.

For some reason, the hearing had to be adjourned. I adjourned the court and went back to my “chambers.” When I got back into the room, I immediately noticed that my SCAI Blackberry wasn’t on the desk anymore. It was missing. It had definitely been there when I left the room at 2 pm. I looked around the room for the Blackberry. I checked everywhere I could think of, including the wastepaper bin. Conceivably, I may have knocked it off the desk on my way out to deal with the hearing. I couldn’t find the Blackberry. This was a major crisis, and I was beginning to panic. Lady Smith and the groupthink were already on my case big time. The Blackberry might conceivably give access to sensitive material in the wrong hands, like contact numbers of SCAI staff. There might be data protection issues. I knew that Lady Smith would make a very, very big deal of it if I had to report my SCAI Blackberry as having been lost. I was in a panic.

I contacted Emma Clark and the other Sheriff Clerk, Emma Clapperton-Turnbull. The two Emmas were the normal contacts in Selkirk Sheriff Court if I needed anything. I explained that my SCAI Blackberry was missing. I was concerned that someone, a member of the public or even an accused person, may have got into the room and picked it up off the desk. Having thought about it carefully, I asked if the whole court building could be locked down until the Blackberry was found. I knew this wouldn’t be a straightforward exercise and that there would be issues if members of the public had to be searched. I asked the Emmas to inform Sheriff Paterson and ask him to adjourn his busy criminal court meantime. He did so. This was a major crisis.

I called my Blackberry’s number at 14.14; at 14.16; twice at 14.23; twice at 14.24; at 14.25; and at 14.26. Eight calls. Trying desperately to find the Blackberry. Some of those calls were made while I was in the room, others when I was retracing my steps through the building. The Blackberry was on silent with vibration turned on. I’d definitely have heard it if it had been in the bin. I didn’t hear it. I’d already searched the wastepaper bin.

Eventually, the crisis was ended. How? Guess who found my Blackberry? In the wastepaper bin in my chambers. Yes, you guessed. Emma Clark. At the time, I was just relieved that I had my SCAI Blackberry back in my possession. The crisis that would have arisen with Lady Smith had been averted. I’d explained to both Emmas just exactly how difficult a matter this would have been. In any event, Emma Clark knew all about the problems in the SCAI. I’d told her. At one point that day, when I was cursing and panicking about what Lady Smith might do if I couldn’t find the Blackberry, Emma Clark said something about how much she liked and admired Lady Smith. Weird in the circumstances. Anyway, the Blackberry crisis was averted at the time. I was prepared to accept that the Blackberry must have been knocked into the wastepaper basket. Very unlikely. And I had checked there already. Someone had it.

When I left Selkirk Sheriff Court at 5 pm that evening, I was utterly stressed. I was ill. And I had complicated orders to write which needed to be done urgently, in the interests of three children.

So, I’m supposed to have left Selkirk Sheriff Court at 5 pm with post-traumatic relief, and with symptoms of severe anaemia, gone home that evening, and bombarded Emma Clark with unwelcome explicit material. It didn’t happen.

I can demonstrate that it didn’t happen from records of my home IT usage. I have the detail. Apart from that, I had a houseful of young people. 9th August 2016 was the day my daughter got her exam results. That date can be checked out with SQA, the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We were celebrating. We also had a French student with us. He only arrived the day before, 8th August 2016. Our usual, busy household. And I was ill. And shattered. And with work to do.

Further light is shed on matters first thing the next morning, 10th August 2016. I’m supposed to have Whatsapped Emma Clark that morning at 7 am, according to what the cops put to me.

Funnily enough, I was busy at 7 am, and I can prove it. I was communicating with Emma Clark. I was drafting an email about the previous day’s Blackberry incident. That email was sent to both Emmas at 7.08 am. Sent from my laptop. Not from my iPhone. Here’s what it said:

“From: John Halley [mailto:johnhalley@amadvocates.co.uk]

Sent: 10 August 2016 07:08

To: OMeara Emma

Cc: Turnbull, Emma

Subject: Yesterday

Dear Emma and Emma

I want to apologise to both of you for the crisis yesterday over the Blackberry in the bin. I had no idea where it was. As you both understood, it was a matter of crucial importance to me. I appreciate that I caused some disruption to both courts, so please pass on my sincere apologies to Sheriff Paterson.

Many thanks again.

John.”

I didn’t receive a specific reply to that from Emma Clark. But I was in email contact with her throughout the day on 10th August 2016 in relation to the previous day’s ICSOs. I had to draft a Note explaining my reasons for making each of the orders, specifically addressing the welfare of each individual child. I have copies of the emails about the Note. I also had to return the papers once the orders and Note had been finalised by me.

Those email exchanges were completely relaxed. Not remotely consistent with someone who’s distressed at being bombarded with unwelcome, inappropriate material from a workplace superior, a predator, throughout the course of the previous evening. That’s because it didn’t happen.

If it had happened as she now says, it could, and should, have been reported immediately to Scottish Courts. I’d have been immediately suspended. And prosecuted.

But the reply to my 7.08 am email from the other Emma was as follows:

“From: Turnbull, Emma <eturnbull@scotcourts.gov.uk>

Sent: 10 August 2016 12:45

To: John Halley

Subject: RE: Yesterday

Dear Sheriff

Apologies for my late response. I have been in court all morning.

You don’t need to apologise, I am just so glad that we found it. I have passed on your apologies to Sheriff Paterson.

Emma

Emma L Clapperton-Turnbull

Relief Officer of Lothian & Borders Sheriffdom

Scottish Court and Tribunal Service

Selkirk Sheriff Court – 01750 721269

Jedburgh Sheriff Court – 01835 863231

www.scotcourtstribunals.gov.uk”.

The final emails in several exchanges with Emma Clark on 10th August 2016 were in the following terms:

“—–Original Message—–

From: John Halley [mailto:johnhalley@amadvocates.co.uk]

Sent: 10 August 2016 11:49

To: OMeara Emma

Subject: Re: [Tiny Scanner] Doc 10 Aug 2016, 11:30

I was considering dropping in to Selkirk later with the papers if I can escape from the office. Would that be convenient? We can clear up all outstanding matters in relation to yesterday except, possibly, my note?

I can give you a hard copy?

John.

Sent from my iPhone”.

“From: OMeara Emma <EOMeara@scotcourts.gov.uk>

Sent: 10 August 2016 12:21

To: John Halley

Subject: RE: [Tiny Scanner] Doc 10 Aug 2016, 11:30

Im going to be in a meeting this afternoon so today wouldn’t be the most convenient.

Tomorrow would be ok though.

E”.

So, as you can see, the final communication with Emma Clark on 10th August 2016 was a suggestion by her that me dropping into Selkirk Sheriff Court on 11th August 2016 “would be ok though.” Signed “E”. Is this consistent with someone who now, in 2022 or 2023, has told the police that she was in a state of fear and alarm on 10th August 2016 because I’d bombarded her with unwelcome explicit material the night before? Does this stink? I also worked as Sheriff at Selkirk Sheriff Court on 12^th August 2016. With Emma Clark as my clerk. If I had indeed bombarded Emma Clark with unwelcome and explicit material at any time, then it was her duty, not her choice, to report that matter at least to her employers.

The obvious incongruity between what is said by the cops to have been alleged by Emma Clark to have happened on 9th and 10th August 2016, and the demonstrable record of what did, in fact, happen, lead me to suspect that Emma Clark herself did not put together the fabricated sequence of WhatsApp messages. Maybe I’ll get to ask her. She owes me for the handbag and shoes.

Emma Clark contacted me on WhatsApp in March 2019 to invite me to a retirement party for one of the ladies who worked in the Sheriff Clerk’s office in Selkirk. She obviously wasn’t in fear and alarm at that time. The lady’s name is Isabel, or Izzie, Freeman. We always got on well. So much that she wanted me to come to her retirement party, having not seen me for two and a half years. I’m sure she’ll be an important witness. Emma Clark, first of all, emailed me about this on 27th March 2019. Because I was planning to re-engage with Lady Smith at that time, I didn’t reply to the email. So she Whatsapped me. A private message from her mobile to my mobile. Again, this is someone who says she was in a state of fear and alarm because I bombarded her with explicit material on the 9th and 10th of August 2016. I replied by email on 23rd April 2019 at 08.28 am. She replied to that at 18.41 on the same date:

“Clark, Emma <EClark@scotcourts.gov.uk>

Tue 23/04/2019, 18:41

John Halley

Dear John,

I acknowledge receipt of your email and shall of course pass on your best wishes to Isabel.

Regards

Emma

Emma Clark

Sheriff Clerk Depute

Selkirk Sheriff Court

Tel: 01750 721 269”.

I assume she did. But we can ask Izzie. I didn’t go to the party. But I might have. How would that have gone? With accusations from Emma Clark? I don’t think so. That’s because they’re false accusations which hadn’t been formulated at that time in April 2019. And that’s because it didn’t happen in 2016.

There’s another incident worth mentioning. My wife was called for jury service at Selkirk Sheriff Court in about 2017-2018. I was still ill but recovering. I don’t have the dates just now, but I’ll get them. It’s obvious that my wife couldn’t sit on a jury in Selkirk. So she phoned the Sheriff Clerk’s office expecting to be excused. She spoke to Emma Clark. She was told to come anyway. So my wife spent one whole day in Selkirk Sheriff Court and was asked to return the following day. When she went back for the second day, she was met at the entry door to the courthouse by the court officer, Jim. He was waiting specifically for my wife to turn up. He was sort of barring her way with his arm and telling my wife she wasn’t needed and couldn’t sit on the jury anyway. Concerning. Actually, messing about with the administration of justice here. That’s a matter that will be in my imminent conduct complaint about her to Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, her employers. You see, Sheriff Clerks deal with a wide array of really sensitive matters, from child protection issues to wills and confirmation of estates. You can’t have a liar, a perverter of the course of justice, in that role.

There’s other stuff about Emma Clark’s conduct after the 9th and 10th of August 2016 that undermines her story. She worked with me at different times during August, September, and October 2016. On the last day I worked, I sat as Sheriff in Selkirk on 28th October 2016. I did criminal business, children’s hearing and child protection, and I heard a civil proof and decided it there and then about a horse transporter contract. I sent the draft interlocutor, or court order, to Emma Clark’s Scottish Courts email address at 22.11 hrs on Sunday, 30th October 2016. My last act as a Sheriff. I was going into hospital the next morning at 7 am for surgery. My email stated:

“From: John Halley

Sent: 30 October 2016 22:11

To: OMeara Emma

Subject: Draft Interlocutor

Dear Emma

I attach a draft interlocutor in relation to Friday’s preliminary proof. It may require to be amended. Perhaps you can send it back to me in standard form and I will print it out and sign it as soon as I can?

Thank you for all of your help last week.

With best wishes

John.”

No reply in fear and alarm or the like. In fact, No reply at all. I assume there was no appeal. Ask Gavin MacColl KC. He appeared for the pursuer.

Apart from the invitation to Izzie Freeman’s retirement party, Emma Clark’s name came up again in a conversation with a friend of mine in about April 2022. My friend, who’s way, way overqualified, decided to apply for the post of Court Officer at Selkirk. He asked me to be his referee. I agreed. He came into my house on the way back from his interview at Selkirk in about April 2022. He was sitting having a coffee with me at my kitchen table when his phone rang. It was one of the Emmas. He didn’t know which. Both Emmas had interviewed him that day. They knew I was his referee. He was being offered the job. He told them, in my presence, that he was sitting at my kitchen table and that I was asking for them. No problem. No fear and alarm. In due course, I was contacted by Scottish Courts and completed a reference and sent it back to them by email dated Sunday, 4th September 2022. I was thanked in a reply dated 5th September 2022. Now, if what the cops told me is true, then Emma Clark had gone to them and made a complaint during August 2022. Weird? You bet. Ok to be a referee but with a hideous secret and very, very delayed distress on the part of Emma Clark. Does that sound feasible? It’s a pack of lies.

If there had been any genuine and legitimate concern about my conduct towards Emma Clark in August 2016, or after, then I wouldn’t have been an appropriate referee. This isn’t a matter of personal choice for Emma Clark. The employment of Court Officers is an important aspect of the administration of justice in Sheriff Courts all over Scotland. In this instance, Emma Clark was discharging formal duties of the Sheriff Clerk, in her capacity as a Sheriff Clerk Depute.

Now the next thing about Emma Clark is her behaviour after my arrest on 15th February 2023. I know now that there was absolutely no chat, or even a mention, about my arrest in Selkirk Sheriff Court. Despite the fact that I’m plastered all over the local Selkirk newspaper, the Border Telegraph, on 9th March 2023. This was the very day the Times broke the story. The Border Telegraph usually picks up articles from the Times and elsewhere, processes them, and runs the story the next week. It’s a weekly newspaper. However, the Border Telegraph ran the article about me on 9th March 2023. That indicates it was a press release. Not something that had to be selected and processed. A direct mailshot by those 3 x 1 Group scumbags on behalf of Lady Smith. A “media strategy” devised by that media strategist for Lady Smith, and Lord Hardie, Graham McKendry. Anyway, despite the mass media reporting, on TV, radio, local radio, newspapers, social media and the internet, not a word was said in Selkirk Sheriff Court. Where everyone knows me, and I live just along the road. Weird. And Emma Clark’s back there. Until just shortly prior to 9th March 2023, Emma Clark had been relocated to Edinburgh Sheriff Court. But she was moved back to Selkirk, my local town. Brazen. The stench.

Another factor adds to the stench. Gavin Dewar, Advocate, is a weird bloke, in my experience. He continually sent me apparently inappropriate approaches in WhatsApp messages over the period from about the summer of 2019, when he had moved to Galashiels, until the summer of 2022. Screenshots make useful records. He moved to Galashiels in 2019. No Advocates move to Galashiels.

He has repeatedly endeavoured to seek me out in a weird way. He makes friends with people I know, like my wife’s cousin, whom he met in a pub. He even turned up at the cousin’s father’s funeral in 2019. He goes on about how well he knows me, which is an exaggeration. He sends me photos of himself with people I know. I think he may usually have been drinking. My family used to laugh and talk about Dad’s admirer. Weird and with lines of kisses. XXXXX.

However, now, in retrospect, I suspect Dewar was involved in setting me up. He’s an utter blow. A windbag and a gossip. That’s all he does. More about Dewar himself later. For present purposes, he was always trying to name-drop and tie me into conversations about people we both knew. As if he was fishing for information. Then, in about Spring of 2022, he started talking about appearing in a case in Selkirk Sheriff Court. He started mentioning the Sheriff Clerk, Emma Clark. I didn’t bite. But, in retrospect, I think Dewar was implicated in setting me up. One of Dewar’s other concerning connections was that he used to work for SLAB. Guess who with? Douglas Haggerty, Head of Legal Services. Read the Note. In all the circumstances, the stench is fairly strong. I haven’t heard a peep from Dewar since the summer of 2022. His last WhatsApp messages to me (which he autodeletes) were protesting that he wasn’t a rat! I hadn’t even suggested that he was a rat. But I do suspect that Dewar repeatedly attempted to lure me into some inappropriate conversations about advocates and judges. That appeared to be his modus.

In the weeks after my arrest on 15th April 2023, my family had to go round friends and neighbours to prepare them for news that was definitely going to break at some point. This was explained as a relationship with a colleague, but not criminal, that I’d been involved in. We had to prepare our friends and people who knew us. It was hard. Most were outraged at me. And rightly so. But most were ultimately supportive because we were telling them about a complete stitch-up. It was really, really hard. Because something like that appears to tarnish everything. Even all the lovely stuff. That’s my fault. But it had been magnified, exacerbated and made to be traumatic on a much higher level. For all of us. They really hurt my family. And they intended to do that.

But for the love, support and care of my family, I can definitely say I wouldn’t be here now. And I’m pretty sure that’s what was meant to happen. It might be the Faculty way. And they left a period of time between the arrest on 15th February 2023 and the media monstering on 9th March 2023. I suspect that was to give me time to end it all. Then a further nudge by the monstering.

And it’s the stench that tells me that’s what was meant to happen. I know, on reflection, from communications with Gavin Dewar. He repeatedly chatted about other Advocates who have been driven to take their own lives. He told me about how close he was to some of these poor blokes. He said he’d spent the night before with one man who took his own life the next day. What he described sounded concerning to me. Dewar was appointed as an Advocate Depute in May 2022 by Lord Advocate Bain. So, Dewar’s in Crown Office, no doubt peering over intimate images. And guess what? So is Emma Clark’s husband. Graeme Clark. Since about April 2022. But as a solicitor, because he’s not qualified to be a High Court prosecutor. Saved from the ravages of legal aid cuts affecting small criminal law firms. That was lucky? Or something? The stench is becoming overwhelming.

I thought it would be hard to pin involvement on Lady Smith and others for the fabricated criminal charges and the arrest, but I was pretty sure they were behind it in some way. I had to research, to listen and to unravel.

But nothing prepared us for the media that eventually was put out on 9th and 10 March 2023. When I say “put out,” that’s what I mean. I mean that the media about my arrest wasn’t just picked up by news outlets like newspapers, TV and local radio. I mean, this was coverage by every media outlet far and wide as far as I could see. It hit my local newspaper’s news website first thing on the morning of 9th March 2023, for example. Coverage of my arrest was broadcast on local radio stations, small local papers, the BBC, and Scottish Television. It seemed to have been picked up, immediately, by everyone in the Scottish media and beyond. Suggestive of a blanket media strategy and coordinated press release. But who? Who would have the power, influence, resources and, most importantly, connections to achieve that?

The story was first of all run in the Times. It was written by Poppy Koronka. But it was tweeted on Twitter by the that smug-looking Magnus Llewellyn, the Editor of Times Scotland. He had deleted the tweet by about lunchtime on 9th March 2023. But this came from the top. The first surprising thing about the story was its immediate link to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. I hadn’t expected that. I expected an angle about me being a part-time Sheriff and Emma Clark being a Sheriff Clerk Depute. That’s certainly the angle the cops were keen to explore, with absolutely no merit. Not so. No mention of a woman. Only “child abuse,” “child abuse inquiry,” and “sexual offences.” The Times online even had a photograph of me all over it. The headline was “Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry lawyer arrested over sex offences.” Not “alleged” sex offences. Just “sex offences.” It’s actionable. It’s defamatory. It’s cocky. It’s in blatant contempt of court. This came from the top, wherever the top is. And whoever it is that’s at the top.

It became clear from the subsequent media coverage that the principal angle was to be my link to the SCAI. Nothing about Lady Smith being my opponent in Employment Tribunal proceedings and elsewhere. Nothing about Lady Smith’s disability discrimination against me, or failure to investigate serious allegations of organised child sexual abuse and trafficking involving lawyers and judges. No, the coverage simply, and obliquely, repeated the phrases “sex offences,” “Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry lawyer,” “child abuse,” and “child abuse inquiry” as often as possible in short media statements juxtaposed with my name. The media coverage also focused on Lady Smith’s rightness and honourableness, describing her as a “Supreme Court judge in Scotland.” Untrue, for one. She had retired in about June 2022. But the intention as to what was meant to be communicated wasn’t that subtle. It was obvious. Halley is a sex offender. It has something to do with child sexual abuse. It’s serious; he’s been arrested and charged by the cops. Lady Smith is a judge, right and honourable. Of course, Lady Smith was, and is, my opponent and nemesis in a number of court and tribunal cases. Lady Smith should have been nowhere near any legitimate media coverage. The irresistible inference is that she was using the media for monstering purposes. Judicial monstering. The concept in action.

The Times even went a step further with “Related articles” at the bottom of the page. These were about the conviction of John Watt KC, Hardie’s devil and convicted child sexual abuser, with a headline which read “Police open inquiry into child abuse by lawyers” and “MP names ex-teacher accused of serial abuse.”

I had been well and truly monstered.

Call Dr. Fyvie – the curious case of the incompatible belief system.

Othering is a recognised psychological phenomenon. One brief definition of othering is as follows:

“The act of treating someone as though they are not part of a group and are different in some way.”

Othering can happen naturally. It happens, according to nature, and often cruelly, between children in schools all over the world. Othering in the workplace, or legal context here, is used to mean the alienation of one individual from the group, which is effective to the extent that all agree the other person is effectively unable to access and vindicate the rights which should be available to all. This chapter details the othering of Susan O’Brien, QC, the first appointed Chair of SCAI. It was done with the intention of removing an independent public inquiry panel.

I’m going to try to explain in the next chapter about the othering process used for me when I had cancer. Very cruel, callous, and unusual. First of all, in this part, I have to give you some background on how the SCAI began its life. The groupthink developed their othering skills to perfection with Susan O’Brien, QC.

The acute progression of my illness throughout 2016 coincided with the corruption involved in undermining the original Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry panel under Susan O’Brien, QC. It was an instructive experience during which I witnessed the Scottish Government’s civil servants at work for the first time and at first hand. Untrustworthy, duplicitous, and scheming. It seemed to be part of their work culture. I’d never really worked with any civil servants before except in Crown Office. It was definitely and eye-opener. I witnessed groupthink in action as I’d never seen it before.

When Susan O’Brien QC was appointed as chair of the SCAI in about late May to June 2015, I was the first person she contacted. Susan and I had worked together on cases involving the interests and welfare of children over the years since about 1999. Susan knew about my background working in residential social work with young people in the care system. She obviously also knew I’d been a High Court prosecutor and a part-time Sheriff since 2010. Susan told me she knew I was the perfect fit as counsel to the inquiry, which was originally to be called the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry. It was the panel under Susan who decided to change the name. The term “Historical” was felt by survivors to be inappropriate.

Susan and I had also had various discussions over the years. She knew that I was concerned about persistent and recurring allegations of organised child sexual abuse by lawyers and judges and the exploitation of vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. In particular, Susan knew that I was concerned that allegations of child sexual abuse relating to Lord Hardie, and others, had to be investigated and considered. So, Susan knew that I was the guy who knew where some of the bodies were buried, so to speak. As SCAI chair, she was signed up to making sure that material was properly investigated. That was to be her downfall.

Susan was also initially interested to know whether I had any thoughts about the identity of an expert to join the inquiry panel. I immediately told her that Professor Michael Lamb of Cambridge University would be a perfect fit. I explained that Michael is one of the foremost developmental psychologists in the world. He’s also an expert in devising and conducting scientifically demonstrated research. I suggested that Michael would be the perfect expert, with a worldwide reputation and authority, to give the inquiry real clout and credibility in a global context. Here’s a very old CV of Michael’s that can be found online. It seems to pre-date his Chair at Cambridge¹. I put Susan in touch with Michael once I’d sounded him out. Although they are very different characters with very different professional backgrounds and experiences, there was a meeting of the minds between them.

When the inquiry was being set up, in the summer and early autumn of 2015, Susan was persuaded by the Minister responsible, Angela Constance, to engage Scottish Government civil servants in key roles and to run the machinery of the inquiry. This was a massive mistake which ultimately cost Susan dearly. It cost her the position as inquiry chair. It was also at the expense of her reputation, courtesy of the sneaky and evil seconded civil servants. It’s important to understand what happened. This is the way the Scottish Government runs public inquiries. There are other, more recent, examples. Packing them with their own civil servants in key roles is the best way to manage “independent” public inquiries and make sure they reach the “right”, i.e. the desired, conclusions. That’s very dangerous in any public inquiry. It’s completely unacceptable in the running of an inquiry for the investigation of child abuse.

I watched them carefully while they set about their task. They seem to operate in a groupthink pack by implementing their system of othering the target: making sure the target is isolated and can’t access the sorts of rights and support that everyone else is entitled to. The person is other – different for some nebulous reason – and to be alienated from the group. There is a consensus, and the othered person isn’t part of that. Once othered, the target is monstered: differentiated from the group by a monstrous perceived or alleged characteristic or fault which any right-thinking person would be horrified by. I know the modus well. It happened to Susan, and I saw it. It’s happened to me now too.

Susan agreed with Constance to appoint Andrea Summers as Solicitor to the inquiry. I got on well with Summers until I didn’t. Tall and anxious. About everything. Nothing was straightforward. You always had to work out what her angle was on any issue. She slowly divulged her agenda on any matter after trapping you into a committed view beforehand. No degree of candour. She told me she had been really upset at the conclusion of the last inquiry on which she was solicitor, or deputy solicitor. It related to infected blood products. The bereaved families were burning and throwing copies of the inquiry report at her. It was on the news. She was upset about that big time. She didn’t want that to happen on the SCAI. Summers came from Paisley. She went to Brediland Primary School. I went to St. Paul’s when we lived in Paisley at the start of the 1970s. They were close to each other in Foxbar. We seemed to have some stuff in common, and children.

Susan also agreed to appoint another civil servant, Julie-Anne Jamieson, as Secretary to the SCAI. Now she came across as untrustworthy from the outset. Sleekit. On any issue, you could bank on her taking a bizarre and complicated angle. She complicated the hell out of any issue, no matter how small or insignificant. Mega-manipulative. And with a voice that sounded to me like Roland Rat, if you remember that annoying little rodent. Jamieson had this daily routine where she would be peering into her laptop first thing in the morning, checking all the diaries of the civil servants she was interested in. She’d be looking to see who was to be in meetings with whom. Then she tried to work out from her other civil servant knowledge what they were meeting about. Who was maybe getting ahead of her in the civil servant world or pecking order. Weird. I’d never seen anything like it before.

Jamieson and Summers immediately suggested two names as senior counsel for the inquiry. Colin Macaulay and Jim Peoples. Unfortunately, I thought these were reasonable suggestions at the time. I regret that in retrospect. Macaulay is the Scottish Government’s safe pair of hands on public inquiries. He’d done it before. That’s why they wanted him. Jamieson and Summers didn’t know what issues might arise. But they knew they could rely on Macaulay, no matter what. A self-serving islander from South Uist. A big Catholic, like Jamieson, but with lifelong, personal, connections to some of the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland. At boarding school with the catholic bishops. Macaulay was permitted to keep the SCAI chapters about child sexual and other abuses in and by the Catholic Church in Scotland under his own supervision. I witnessed the early stages. But the progression of matters in this manner was confirmed to Susan O’Brien, KC, by one of the counsel instructed by the SCAI (as opposed to having been appointed as counsel to the inquiry). That was David Sheldon, KC. On 22^nd July 2021, Sheldon was trying to milk Susan for information about me. Susan later narrated the substance of part of their conversation as follows:

“Dear John

You have asked me to write down what I recollect David Sheldon saying about Colin McAulay’s area of work when I met David for lunch this time last year (22.7.21).

I remember him saying that Colin had kept investigations and work about the Catholic Church’s involvement in Child Abuse to himself, when decisions about dividing up tasks were taken.

David said that the end was in sight for that line of work, and I commented that Colin might well retire then – as he had clearly postponed his retirement for much longer than he had anticipated.

I think I said that I had always thought that his main interest was in historic abuse within Catholic institutions (though of course he was conscientious in investigating many other issues).”

This school photograph from St. Vincent’s College, Langbank, session 1964-65, shows Macaulay in S2 (last on right, second back row). Row 6 shows Philip Tartaglia, later to become Archbishop of Glasgow until his death in 2021.

Macaulay later attended St. Mary’s College, Blairs, forming enduring and lifelong relationships with many of the people who went on to become senior clergy in the Catholic Church in Scotland. At one early SCAI meeting in late 2015, I witnessed the warm exchanges between lifelong acquaintances when Macaulay met Bishop Joseph Toal, then Chairman of the Safeguarding Commission for the Catholic Bishops in Scotland. “Hello, Colin.” “Hello, Joe.” Their familiarity made me, also a former Langbank and Blairs pupil (August 1975-October 1977), very uncomfortable. The point here is conflict of interest. An active conflict capable of affecting the proper fulfilment of the SCAI’s terms of reference in matters of acute public interest. The Catholic Church in Scotland has escaped full and proper investigation in relation to historical child, and other, abuse. That subject is worthy of a separate text.

Macaulay was accurately described to me by one senior counsel as not being the person who’d stab you in the back; but being the one who’d create the opportunity, give the stabber the knife and turn a blind eye during the attack. Sneaky, untrustworthy and ruthless in his imperative for self-preservation, as I duly found out to my cost. Peoples is an employment law expert. His Faculty profile includes the following details:

“James A Peoples has a civil advocacy and opinion practice with expertise and experience in many areas of civil practice including commercial law, employment law (including discrimination in employment), judicial review, public and administrative law, human rights, and reparation including both professional negligence …”

The SCAI had access, therefore, to the best disability discrimination advice and advocacy without the need for instructing external counsel. Such as Brian Napier KC.

Susan actually had to fight for Peoples to be appointed as a second senior counsel in August to September 2015. She even made representations on his behalf to make sure that he was paid the highest possible hourly rate. She got him £240 per hour. Then he betrayed her, passively at first, but vicious, nonetheless. Macaulay was on £270 per hour. Every hour. For 8 years now. Think about that and consider what survivors of child sexual abuse are being offered by the Scottish Government’s redress scheme.

Incidentally, David Sheldon, KC, mentioned above, was someone I reached out to when he was diagnosed with cancer. This was in December 2018 when I was recovering. Despite that reaching out, offering to help if there was anything at all I could do for him, he tried to milk Susan O’Brien for information about me in 2021. He’d recovered by then and was working on SCAI. Having been invited to lunch by Sheldon, Susan eventually formed the impression that he was actually trying to elicit information about me, and my Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019. He told Susan that Macaulay was thinking then about asking me for a witness statement about the Note. He said he’d only been allowed to see a part of the Note and that it was only available to Macaulay. Brazen.

So, basically, the original senior inquiry team was Susan, me, Macaulay, Peoples, Summers and Jamieson. There was another Scottish Government civil servant called Mark Dorrian, who was eventually given the title of deputy secretary. A dour, unsmiling, Northern Irishman with a downbeat comment readily delivered on any aspect of daily life and work. Joy-sucker. But he, too, had been part of the Summers team on the previous report burning inquiry.

Susan’s concept of an inquiry capable of dealing with the sorts of sensitive issues and facts that would inevitably be raised was to make sure that decisions and findings were made on an evidenced base by a panel. This would allow for genuine expertise and experience of matters other than the law and justice system to have equal input into any findings or conclusions that might be reached. Learning for the future welfare of children by what had been found to have gone wrong in the past. Susan was also committed to appointment on merit. So even prospective panel members had to apply for appointment and attend an interview.

Professor Michael Lamb and Glenn Houston were the panel members who were appointed. Together with Susan, this was to be the inquiry panel. Glenn Houston was a Northern Irishman. Generally upbeat, fresh-faced for his age, with career-long experience on government and quango-type decision-making bodies concerned with people-focused issues in Northern Ireland. This appeared to be a panel whose different skills and experience would provide balance, expertise, insight, know-how and trauma-informed judgement on the necessary issues for investigation and resolution by SCAI.

The panel interviews were conducted by Susan, together with Summers and Jamieson. Jamieson was only too keen to tell me, repeatedly, afterwards that “Michael didn’t interview well”. The implication was that Michael Lamb should not have been appointed to the inquiry panel, but Susan had insisted on him. This civil servant, with next to no experience of, or expertise in, asking questions of, or interviewing, anyone, thought she was well-placed to comment on an interview with the king of forensic interviewing. But the irony was entirely lost on her. She was talking about her own limited grasp of that competency-based interviewing guff that allows civil servants to exclude those whom they don’t want to appoint from interview competitions. Just google Michael Lamb. Even if she was right in her absurd assessment, Michael Lamb didn’t have to impress her. He is Michael Lamb. The only person of genuine world-wide respect and authority ever associated with the SCAI. But it was clear, there was a discernible anti-Michael Lamb sentiment even from that early on from both Jamieson and Summers. This was September 2015. This raised the question of what was being said, and by whom, in those Scottish Government and civil servant circles. I mean, what child abuse inquiry in the world would not grab Michael Lamb’s expertise with both hands, if they could get it? Scotland’s is the answer.

So, the inquiry proper began in October 2015. Between then and Christmas, it was allowed to begin to get its act together. Drafting protocols, engaging with survivor groups and institutions, and sorting out systems and personnel that would be necessary for its work. At each and every stage, however, Summers’s palpable anxiety and Jamieson’s cack-handedness were burdensome. They were ably assisted by their already devoted civil servant underlings who were by then all over the inquiry, at every conceivable level. Independent inquiry? I don’t think so. Summers and Jamieson asserted themselves on every possible issue, usually by passive-aggressive, manipulative means rather than by honest and straightforward discussion. Meetings were numerous and daily. Round and round on every conceivable issue. At a big sleep-inducing table. Utterly pointless, ineffective and counter-productive. Summers and Jamieson were ably assisted by another real nasty piece of work, Deputy Solicitor Felicity Cullen. Sharp and capable, undoubtedly. But really, really nasty. Very proud of her ability to deliver nasty English prose in different formats, as required. She had a first in English with nastiness, I think. Macaulay used to suck up to her. He insisted that all formal documents had to be run past her, to be “Felicitised”, as he called it. An interesting appointment to SCAI was Cullen. The daughter of Lord Cullen of Whitekirk. Former Lord President of the Court of Session. Chair of the Dunblane and Piper Alpha Inquiries. Inquiry Meister. The “right” judge, as Michael Forsyth had requested in 1996. Felicity repeatedly emphasised that, in her view, the Queen Victoria School, Dunblane, should not be regarded as falling within the SCAI’s jurisdiction. It was a school run by the Army for the children of servicemen and women serving abroad. It fell under the jurisdiction of the Army, or of the IICSA in London. Really? It was also a prime location for organised child trafficking and sexual abuse, allegedly.

Everyone had to use Scottish Government IT – laptops, Blackberries and the like. This worried me. Independent inquiry? The laptop’s home page was a Scottish Government civil servant zone. There was even a wee icon of that woman with the big pay-off, Lesley Evans, at the top left of the home screen. She was telling everyone to do different things every single morning. A string of pearls at the base of her long neck. Remember to support the Scottish Government’s views on this, that and the next matter that they all happened to be obsessed with at that time. “Nicola” says blah blah. Promoting the cult of Sturgeon. The ultimate in active management of groupthink. I’m not joking. It was like nothing I’d ever seen before. A completely Scottish Government contaminated work environment. And all apparently normalised. No one seemed to think there was anything untoward. Demonstrably not independent. No matter how much they protest.

I had found it really weird that one of the first things everyone was asked about for the inquiry, in September 2015, was the Christmas party! Weird. It seemed to me that this was some sort of priority. I’m used to not working in an environment in which I have to go to a Christmas party. Jamieson’s email about this came on 28th September 2015! Prefaced with “I appreciate that it is only September and we haven’t officially started yet, but…” I thought the survivors of child sexual abuse would likely take a dim view of the documented priority issue.

I also thought that the survivors would take a dim view of the whole SCAI senior team going off to Australia to see their Inquiry in action. Susan, Michael and Glenn agreed. Even Macaulay and Peoples agreed. So Summers and Jamieson went on the long trip. Summers took the opportunity for her family to have a holiday in Singapore too.

The inquiry was allowed to run until the new year in 2016. Then, right at the start of the first week back to work after the festive period in January, the pressure seriously began to be applied by the Scottish Government overseers. Summers and Jamieson were called to a meeting with a civil servant from the “sponsorship” team. His name was Donald Henderson. The meeting was on 7th January 2016. At the meeting, Henderson proposed regular undocumented meetings between Susan and Constance as relevant minister. When Summers suggested that the independence of the inquiry might be compromised by that, Henderson then obliquely referred to the “nuclear option”. The Sunday Times reported on it in May 2019². It became clear to both Summers and Jamieson that Henderson was actually threatening to remove Susan as chair of the SCAI. Unthinkable. But it happened. And Summers and Jamieson played vital roles in the plan and its cruel and calculated implementation and execution.

It was clear that when Henderson made the nuclear option threat, Summers and Jamieson hadn’t been involved in the removal plan’s formulation at that point. That’s why they reported back with apparent horror exactly what Henderson had said. In detail. And they reported it to the whole senior inquiry team and panel members. You see their civil servant cack-handedness until that point had been a straightforward manifestation of how they operate. Maybe with a bit of attitude based on what they’d heard from others. But they, and their civil servant team, weren’t undermining and plotting until well after the 7th January 2016 meeting with Donald Henderson. Henderson’s threat was a genuine surprise to them at the time. But they learned fast.

It wasn’t until about March 2016 time that I had any real indication of a change in the attitudes of either Summers or Jamieson. However, in about March 2016, Summers told me she had been called to a meeting by her Scottish Government boss. He was the Solicitor to the Scottish Government. He was called Murray Sinclair. Google him. His profile pic looks like a Bond-style evil genius. I remember seeing he had sadly died of cancer in about 2018, while I was still recovering from my 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Summers told me that the meeting with Sinclair was an annual sort of appraisal or supervision type thing. When Summers came back from the meeting, I was keen to ask her how she’d got on. She was very anxious about it beforehand. She was evidently uncomfortable at being asked about the meeting. She tried unconvincingly to pass it off as just normal, routine supervision from the boss. But that didn’t sit well with being the independent, seconded, solicitor to the independent SCAI. So I asked her again. She said something to me about having to think about her future progression. What would she be able to do after working on the inquiry? Now I found that odd. But I came to realise what it meant as the weeks and months of 2016 went on. Summers and Jamieson definitely moved into active undermining, and othering, mode around that time, from March to April 2016. As I’ve said, othering appears to be an essential tool for movement towards the first elementary step on the route to monstering. They completed the whole process with Susan.

From that time on, Summers actively sought to confront and undermine Susan at every possible turn. But in a passive-aggressive way. Sulky, sullen and silent. Face tripping her. All the time. About everything. She appeared to be trying to set up a bullying complaint against Susan. Utter nonsense. She even took weeks off work and stayed at home. She even resigned. Yes, Summers resigned as solicitor to the SCAI in about May 2016. And she has never been re-appointed. When she resigned, it was Glenn Houston who was adamant that she should be required to return her inquiry laptop and mobile. She never did. I’m sure she was kept in the loop by her boss, Murray Sinclair, and Jamieson about the developing plot to undermine, humiliate and remove Susan O’Brien from her position as chair of SCAI in the spring and summer of 2016.

They managed to do it. It was astonishing how it was achieved. There was an active process within the civil servant inquiry staff to other Susan. Nebulous and opaque at first, it quickly developed and gained momentum among the cohorts. It was enthusiastically pursued by Felicity Cullen and, in a downbeat manner, by Mark Dorrian. He even accused Michael Lamb of breaching the inquiry’s IT policy because of problems Michael had, through absolutely no fault of his own, with the laptop he was sent. A definite them and us situation developed. Crucially, Macaulay and Peoples made it clear that their loyalties lay with the civil servants and not with Susan, Michael and me. Glenn Houston tried to hedge his bets so that he could remain part of whatever survived. But it became clear that meltdown was imminent. Part of Michael Lamb’s expertise is in forensic interviewing and questioning of children and vulnerable people. Macaulay and Peoples refused to attend a training session which had been arranged with Michael for that purpose. It’s a total joke. Verbose and hopeless Jim Peoples has nothing to learn from Michael Lamb on forensic questioning. Only in Scotland!

When the othering process was at its most developed stage, the civil servants on the inquiry, led by Jamieson and Cullen (because Summers was absent, having resigned), and with the backing of Macaulay and Peoples, conjured up an “opinion” from a “psychologist” which asserted that Susan’s “belief system” was incompatible with holding the position as chair of the inquiry. When I say, “conjured up”, this was an opinion solicited and requested from Fyvie by Jamieson and Cullen. Jamieson initially lied about this to the senior inquiry team. She emailed urgently late on a Friday evening that Dr Claire Fyvie had contacted the inquiry. Lies. Fyvie was wholly unqualified to express such an opinion. She was a former SNP Councillor. Utterly farcical. She had the brazen cheek to give this “opinion” in the face of one of the world’s foremost developmental psychologists. Not based on any empirically verifiable material. Based on her qualifications and experience. As if they provide a licence to do some kind of magic assessment like mind reading. But it got backing from the new minister responsible for SCAI after the June 2016 election. That was John Swinney. Donald Henderson became his right-hand man. So, effectively, the chair of an independent public inquiry was removed by a government employee at the request of the secretary to the inquiry, also a government employee.

I tried to persuade Susan O’Brien to take action against Fyvie; and to sack all inquiry staff and senior team and replace them with independents. She didn’t. I would have. Eventually, Susan resigned. The pressure placed on her in the media and by Swinney and his minions was intolerable. Disgusting. What did she do when she resigned? She went back to her part-time judicial role as a member of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Now if she was so deficient as chair of SCAI, with a belief system that was incompatible with fulfilling that role, how was that possible? Simple. Because the monstering of Susan wasn’t true. It was bogus. Made up. Like that guy, Phil Gormley, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, who was suspended for aeons. For stuff he didn’t do. And he subsequently walked away to a much more responsible job. Nasty. So they can put their own people into essential roles. The “right” people. For the “right” outcomes.

The road map to Susan’s resignation was brutal and vicious. The whole affair was so concerning that it was Michael Lamb who resigned from the inquiry panel first. To Scotland’s utter shame. The only world authority figure ever associated with the SCAI resigned, complaining of Scottish Government interference with its independence. This serious accusation, from a wholly serious figure of world renown, was simply swept away by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament. She simply said she thanked Professor Lamb for his work; and didn’t accept the truth of his accusation. Pathetic, insulting, politically expedient and untrue. Sturgeon lied to parliament. Swinney was primarily responsible for the lies. You can google all the parliamentary lies³⁴. They’re also contained in the report of proceedings in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, 30th June 2016, as represented by the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon:

“We do not accept Professor Lamb’s comments about the independence of the inquiry. Key decisions in relation to the direction of the inquiry, within the terms of reference, and its programme of work are taken by the inquiry panel, which is supported by the inquiry secretary. However, under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Scottish Government has an obligation to fulfil its responsibilities and I believe that we have acted appropriately in doing so. Our priority now remains to support the successful operation of the inquiry and to ensure that the current situation does not impact on its progress in the weeks and months to come.”

You could be forgiven for reading this rubbish and believing it. But think about this. The FM makes reference to the work “taken” by the inquiry panel. There was no inquiry panel at that time. There was no inquiry. It had been undermined, its chair monstered, and the panel taken apart. By Scottish Government civil servants. There was no operation of the inquiry. A public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 cannot exist or act without a panel. This statement by the FM to the Scottish Parliament is essentially untruthful. As I’ve said, Scotland’s shame.

Susan O’Brien had been successfully set up and very publicly and unfairly humiliated and monstered by Jamieson, Summers, Fyvie, Cullen, Swinney and Henderson, among others. It was utterly disgraceful. But much worse was to befall the fate of the SCAI. Lady Smith as chair. Macaulay and Peoples betrayed a fellow QC whom they had known to be an honest, decent and committed professional throughout her lengthy career in the law. They betrayed a colleague who had tried her best to promote their best interests in negotiations with Constance when setting up the inquiry. Weak, pathetic, but worst of all, greedy men. Hopeless. Feathering their own nests and prepared to cover up serious allegations of organised child sexual exploitation and abuse by failing to demand and drive the need for investigation. The imperative for self-preservation appeared to justify, in their own minds and consciences, conduct which repeatedly and steadfastly fell very far short of seven lamps of the advocate.

1http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/vitae/lamb_cv.pdf

2https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-warning-to-scots-child-abuse-inquiry-qsjsc85fh

3https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-warning-to-scots-child-abuse-inquiry-qsjsc85fh

4https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36650261

The Big C.

This chapter sets out my personal experience of the abuse I suffered from Lady Smith, Chair of SCAI, when I was dangerously ill with cancer. It details abusive and cruel treatment of me by a public official, a judge, whose public responsibilities included the exercise of judgement in relation to the abuse of others. The chapter highlights the broader context in which this abuse happened and the underlying reason for it: the need to cover up, by ensuring non-investigation, of organised child sexual abuse and trafficking, apparently involving lawyers.

Anne Smith. The names of various retired and current judges were being spoken of during June and July of 2016 in the SCAI offices. During one discussion, Colin Macaulay advised a gathering of about 10 people in the kitchen area that “Anne Smith would be a disaster for the inquiry”. He was right. But that didn’t prevent him from sucking up to her, implicitly accepting her blatant cruelty and excesses after her appointment by Swinney. He had articulated a truth. Dangerous in a position of power. With media. Totally vindictive, as it turns out. She started as chair on 1st Augst 2016.

Whatever had been discussed with Swinney before her appointment, she lost no time in asserting her agenda with me. By that stage, I was the only remaining member of the Susan O’Brien set. Macaulay and Peoples had been sucking up to Jamieson & co. Summers had appeared back, despite her resignation. I was aware that I was quite ill by the start of August 2016. I was weak and unable to stay awake throughout the working day. I was unable to walk upstairs. I had no energy at all. I’d been ill all year, really. Macaulay, Peoples, Summers, Jamieson and others all knew it. I’d had a month off in February-March time because of pneumonia. More on that later, but they all knew I was ill. So did Lady Smith.

I witnessed the rampant, viral spread of the already atrociously apparent groupthink that existed between Summers, Jamieson and their civil servant minions and ex-cop underlings. The contagion was now more viciously perpetuated by the presence of a new, right and honourable, unquestionable, but fundamentally flawed, leader. Lady Smith. Even Macaulay and Peoples were excluded, to an extent that didn’t exist before, from some of the hours and hours of meetings. I was invited to none of them, having been directly asked to leave a previous one by Cullen just before it began. Something quite unusual was happening, at least in my experience. The groupthink was utterly exclusive. There was an unknown agenda which was pursued by the groupthink members with what looked like psychopathic, smiling, single-mindedness. Not only was I on the outside, suspicious, ill and anxious about my fate. I became incrementally aware that I was the subject of at least some of what was being discussed and group-thought. Even Macaulay and Peoples began to engage only sparingly with me. Both were guarded in any discussions.

I was ill. I had cancer. I didn’t know it at that time. I had rights. Have you looked at the Equality Act 2010? As an Advocate in practice, the ultimate sole practitioner, I’d never really had rights before. Rights to do “protected acts”. Like talking about disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and the like in the workplace. That’s what I’m doing just now, by the way. I also have rights as a whistleblower. That’s quite a complicated area of the law in relation to the different hats I wear professionally, so to speak. But I think I’ve got a grasp of it. The public interest is also critically important. The detail of all of these matters I’ve been talking about is merely incidental to a huge issue in the public interest: cover-up of organised child sexual abuse and corruption in Scotland.

The other important aspect of the work set up was that Lady Smith was not acting as a “judge”, as she insisted on being designed. Her powers now lay within the “four corners” of the Inquiries Act 2005. She was now only a panel. She was, eventually, the sole member of the panel. No need for other expertise or experience.

Lady Smith initially held meetings with each of the senior team members. A reasonable approach, you might think. Her first meeting with me was on 3rd August 2016.

So, the essential point to understand is this: if Lady Smith had been acting as a judge when she was being vicious to me, I had no lawful basis for complaint and no remedy. BUT. Although she says she’s a judge, she’s not protected in the same way when acting as a panel in terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. Very important. Lady Smith could be sued. By me. But only for acts that fell outside the inquiry’s terms of reference, care-based child abuse essentially. It’s obvious that disability discrimination towards a subordinate isn’t related to care-based child abuse. Isn’t it? You can make up your own mind, but apparently not in the Lady Smith and groupthink zone.

When I met with her on 3rd August 2016, Lady Smith warned and threatened me that she (and other groupthink civil servants) might have irreconcilable difficulties in working with me as Leading Junior Counsel to the Inquiry. Lady Smith referred to previous dealings with me, which strongly suggested her difficulty was also of a personal nature. She accused me of leaking confidential information to the BBC. I explained that I hadn’t. The allegation has never, ever, been mentioned again. Bogus, I infer. I question whether she had a proper basis for ever making it at all. She told me the senior inquiry team said they did not trust me. She told me to demonstrate that I could win their trust. I said I would.

Although I tried to keep my head down and get on with working as productively as possible, Lady Smith called me to another meeting on 19th August 2016. This time Lady Smith said that she had reached the view that I had an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of my previous employment in residential social work with young people in care at Wellington School, Penicuik, and St. Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh, between 1989 and 1996. She also tried to accuse me of not disclosing these details. This was part of the experience that I highlighted as justification for my appointment in the first place, as I was quick to tell her. Of course, I couldn’t work on any issues affecting these units. But that didn’t mean I had a conflict of interest on everything else within the terms of reference.

It turns out, by the way, that in the myriad of conflicts of interest affecting all SCAI personnel (especially the civil servants), Lady Smith’s Godson, Duncan Batchelor, was the solicitor who represented the insurers of several of the institutions where abuse had been perpetrated over decades, such as Quarriers. Conflict of interest? Don’t do as I do, do as I say. Very Lady Smith.

The meeting ended with voices raised. I’m not one to back down if I know I’m right. Lady Smith told me to consider my position. She wanted me to resign. I told her I wouldn’t be resigning. She told me I’d better identify areas of work I could do that would accommodate her view of my “conflict”.

I was warned in advance about Lady Smith requiring me to meet with her on 19th August 2016. I got an early morning email from Macaulay asking for me to meet himself and Peoples at Parliament House first thing before going to the SCAI offices at Haymarket. We went for a coffee in the Lower Aisle Café at St. Giles. They told me that Lady Smith “wants rid of you and you’d better resign,” or words to that effect. I told both snakes I had no intention of resigning. It was clear by then that Macaulay and Peoples had agreed which side their bread was buttered on, even in relation to me.

Despite her expressed view of my “conflict of interest”, Lady Smith confirmed that I was to travel on 22nd August 2016 to East Sussex to take evidence. This is eloquent of the hypocrisy involved in setting up the “conflict of interest” scenario in the first place. Here’s a fine example of work I could comfortably undertake, even accommodating Lady Smith’s views. Although I was very unwell, I travelled to East Sussex and back and took the evidence with Colin Harkins, a former Lothian and Borders cop who was employed as a statement noter by the SCAI. We had interesting discussions about Fettesgate, the Magic Circle and much, much more. The journey was marked for me by my sheer exhaustion. It was obvious to me that something was very wrong with me by then. I was ill. I was also feeling under acute pressure from Lady Smith, Macaulay and Peoples, and the groupthink.

While I was away in East Sussex, a new SCAI policy on conflict of interest was circulated by Jamieson. Guess what? It was specially written for me. While I was travelling and undertaking sensitive work for SCAI. Prior social work involvement with children and families in Scotland was to be considered a fundamental conflict of interest. Poor old Prof Jay. She might be suitable for IICSA, but not for SCAI. The othering process was well advanced. It should also be noted, at this point, that one of the SCAI’s preferred quack “experts”, Martin Henry, is caught by this policy. But it wasn’t applied to him. Henry’s MPhil “Thesis”, published by Dundee University, is predicated on surveying the attitudes of one single team of Edinburgh social workers. Interesting, maybe, but not exactly a data set that much can be extrapolated from. You should read it. More about Henry later.

Henry also has enduring and concerning links to the Catholic Church in Scotland. This is another obvious conflict of interest. He was held out as the “Special Adviser” to Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien. However, he gave evidence to the McLellan Commission in a different capacity. This apparent lack of candour remains concerning. The detail is contained in the Report of the McLellan Commission dated August 2015¹.

On 29th August 2016, I had a further brief meeting with Lady Smith. She was going on holiday to Canada for two weeks. I was assuring her of my commitment to SCAI. She seemed not to want any trouble while she was away. Almost human in conversation. But for a purpose.

Things were quiet while Lady Smith was on holiday, but I was aware of the groupthinkers continuing to plot my downfall in early September 2016. Daily lengthy meetings that I wasn’t invited to. Macaulay and Peoples were involved in these too. When Lady Smith returned, the groupthinkers upped the ante. On 26th September 2016, I got another early morning message from Macaulay asking me to meet himself and Peoples at Parliament House before going into the SCAI office. When we met, Macaulay told me that Lady Smith was going to call me in that day and try to make me resign. He said it was about her conflict of interest concerns. Macaulay and Peoples were actually trying to put me under pressure to resign. I politely told them that I would not. They told me that Lady Smith had a pre-prepared large folder of papers assembled by Jamieson and Summers.

Lady Smith duly called me in to meet with her, without prior arrangement, on 27th September 2016. Macaulay was to be present too. He told me that I shouldn’t speak. I think I always made it more difficult for Lady Smith to attempt to assert herself when I spoke, funnily enough. I agreed on the basis that Macaulay was going to explain to Lady Smith that there were areas on which I could still work on SCAI, even in light of Lady Smith’s corrupt, groupthink, conflict of interest analysis. Lady Smith said that I had an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of my previous work with young people in care. Macaulay set out areas I could still work on. This included Crown Office policies. It was all set out in a big email blast by Lady Smith. I worked within that remit and eventually produced my Note for SCAI dated 1st April 2019. More to follow on that.

Jamieson, Summers, Cullen & co obviously had a pretty clear understanding that I was meant to be forced to resign by Lady Smith on 27th September 2016. You see, there is no provision in the Inquiries Act 2005, or subordinate legislation, to sack counsel to an inquiry. The appointment of counsel is confirmed by the relevant minister, on the recommendation of the panel. That was the basis of my appointment in September 2015. It’s still in place and hasn’t been revoked, believe it or not. Big financial claim. It’s in my galaxy of litigation.

Anyway, Jamieson had my name removed from the SCAI website on 30th September 2016 without any authorisation or prior warning. I only saw it when I went home at night. A Friday night. Utterly farcical othering. I am counsel to a public inquiry. A public office. Ministerial Determination in my favour. These are civil servants. I emailed Macaulay immediately. He said he didn’t know anything about it but would find out. He sent an email to the groupthinkers that night. A ridiculous, insulting and untruthful explanation was sent to me by Jamieson on the afternoon of Monday, 3rd October 2016. She wrote:

“I am sorry that this has caused upset. This practical measure was put in place as a result of your discussions with Lady Smith. We had (incorrectly) assumed that you were aware that your name would be taken off the website.

There certainly was no intention to hide anything from you.”

Liars. Groupthink-generated cancellation was the intention.

And so things trundled along for a few days with my SCAI coat on a shooglie peg. I had to walk the whole length of the office every morning, past tens of others, who all knew, to varying extents that I was being targeted – othered – as next for removal. My office was right at the end, just past Lady Smith’s room on the right. I shared with Peoples. He became miraculously sparing in his verbiage, given his propensity to spraff it. I welcomed the relative peace of not having to listen to his boring stories and overthought legal analysis of any issue, which seemed never to come to any clear conclusions.

I knew where I was going with the restricted remit Lady Smith had given me. I also knew there was likely to be resistance to it. I suspected even then that the issues I thought obvious and important might be the whole reason for the Scottish Government’s need to undermine and get rid of Susan and her panel. Organised trafficking of children in care. I now know I was absolutely bang on correct. Glenn Houston was still trying to hang on in there. Unfortunately, he was trying too hard to be pals with the groupthink. It was obvious he was getting it too. That eventually happened. Lady Smith later decided that he had a conflict of interest. Sounds familiar? He sat on an embryology quango in Northern Ireland. Conflict of interest? Lady Smith’s first-line weapon of choice. But she has a full armoury, as you’ll see. Not even a whimper from Glenn.

I’d previously discussed the issues now focused on in my Note dated 1st April 2019 with Jamieson, Peoples and Summers. I discussed them in detail with Colin Harkins at Gatwick Airport, waiting for our plane back from East Sussex in August 2016. He knew a lot about the background issues from his time as a Lothian and Borders cop. When I say discussed, I mean specifically that Hardie’s name was mentioned. I never discussed it with Macaulay. Macaulay was always telling stories about characters and happenings at the Bar, as if it was the ultimate working environment to be aspired to. One day, in about October 2015, he went on and on to me about what a great guy Andrew Hardie was. He told me that Hardie had looked after him when he was a young Advocate and had got him work. He was obviously a big Hardie fan, so I body-swerved any chatter about any need to investigate Hardie for anything.

On 10th October 2016, I had a colonoscopy at the BGH, the Borders General Hospital. It was the colonoscoper’s first day at the BGH, and I was the first colonoscopee of the day, a Monday morning. She was keen to show me a particular apparently remarkable finding, which appeared on the screen like a little blip. Immediately after, I was asked to sit in a waiting area. Then the colonoscoper and a male colleague came in. Both looked serious, ashen-faced, to the extent that I felt sorry for them. They told me they had bad news. They were sure the colonoscopy had shown a cancerous tumour on the upper right side of my colon. I knew from their manner that they thought it was serious. That explained the constant illness, anaemia and falling asleep during different parts of the day. It was suggested that I should go home and get my affairs in order, check insurance policies and that sort of thing. I had only the most general idea that I had life cover in place. I hadn’t checked exactly what cover I had since I took the policies out, way back in about 1996-97 when I was first becoming self-employed. Very scary advice to be given. One of life’s real moments of reckoning, although I’ve had a few more since then, usually courtesy of Lady Smith, Dunlop and the groupthink. You have to process news like that. It’s a shock no-one wants to experience. It’s a lot more complicated when bullies like Lady Smith and the others are breathing down your neck and trying to cancel you. I’d have to think carefully about when to tell them. I had this very intense feeling that this was my private business, nor to be trodden upon by Lady Smith and the groupthink.

On the 12th of October 2016, Macaulay contacted me and told me Lady Smith was again raising issues about my “conflict of interest” and was now firmly of the view that I would have to resign. No chance. I said I wouldn’t. I emailed Angela Grahame, then Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I knew Angela reasonably well. We’d been in Crown Office together. I’d also spoken to her repeatedly about what was happening to me. She was sympathetic and appeared to fully understand what Lady Smith and the groupthink were doing and how unfair it was. Although she was a QC, I’m not at all confident that she grasped how unlawful it was. She knew how Lady Smith worked. Just about everyone does. Just like nearly everyone in the Faculty knows something about Hardie. But no-one says anything, except in the gossip-sphere that is the local currency in Parliament House. Knowledge about others, your competitors, is power. Suum Cuique. The motto of the Faculty of Advocates.

Macaulay wanted me to meet with himself and Peoples again at Parliament House. He had confirmed on 11th October 2016 that it was ok for me to work at home. He had checked this with Lady Smith. I had my restricted remit, committed to writing in Lady Smith’s email dated 27th September 2016. I was unwell, and he knew I was undergoing tests at hospital. I had permission to work at home. But now he wanted me to come into PH to meet again. A reasonably long journey, and day, for a sick guy. I knew what was coming. I phoned him on the Wednesday night in response to his email. I couldn’t track him down. Nor could his wife. He seemed to be “in Glasgow”. All very mysterious. So, I left a message telling him I’d been diagnosed with cancer and that I needed Lady Smith and the groupthink to back off and act as human beings. He acknowledged my message the next morning, and I spoke to him. I specifically told him to tell Lady Smith. I’m pretty sure that Lady Smith and the groupthink, and possibly Macaulay and Peoples, thought I was faking it, or telling a whopper.

Anyway, the point is this. They didn’t back off. Neither did Lady Smith. In fact, Lady Smith and the groupthink pressed harder to try to make me resign. In the knowledge that I’d been diagnosed with cancer. This is blatant, calculated, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. What kind of people are these morons? Macaulay and Peoples too. Can you imagine this happening to someone else and me not having the guts to stick up for them?

Macaulay spent the next couple of weeks trying to arrange for me to meet with himself and Peoples, at least initially, and latterly just with Lady Smith. When I was told that I was to have abdominal surgery on 31st October 2016, I just kept that date to myself. That was private stuff and not for the consumption of enemies. Macaulay himself kept going on about how his sister-in-law had had laparoscopic surgery for bowel cancer, and it was really straightforward. Just a key-hole surgery job. I’m sure that was the groupthink vision of what was to happen if they believed it at all. It wasn’t that serious. Macaulay knew all about it. He always considered himself some clinical expert because he’d been involved in a big clinical negligence case. Fool. I underwent full abdominal surgery. It was no joke. No easy job. It was very, very serious. And sore. And scary.

I stayed at home after that, working at my desk during the day and worrying about how things might shape up for me in total. I was worried about the future and how Lady Smith was trying to cancel me. In fact, she was actually trying to capitalise on my illness to bring things to a head and make me resign. Lady Smith was actually trying to take advantage of my cancer diagnosis to exert more pressure on me to resign. I was never, ever, going to do that. The thing is, as all self-employed Advocates and Barristers know, you’re only as secure as the work you have in your diary for next week. I should have been in a relatively secure position as a self-employed Advocate with a critical illness, life-changing or ending, diagnosis. I had a ministerial appointment at a set fee rate of £140 per hour. Until the end of the inquiry. Instead of being looked after by those responsible in my working environment, I was being hounded in attempts to make me resign. With complete insecurity and total uncertainty ahead of me. Not just for my next gig. For my life.

Macaulay was telling me that Lady Smith and the groupthink now said there was an additional issue. By a remarkable coincidence, just when they wanted me to resign, I was being told that an applicant to the SCAI wanted to be assured that no one who had worked in residential social work would be working on the inquiry. Sure. I wasn’t allowed to see the detail. I was just to accept Lady Smith’s view. Not a chance. She misrepresented the facts. I have it in writing. Way too convenient. And they’re such a bunch of liars. Just another opportunity and excuse to escalate the “conflict of interest” cancellation campaign. So very Scottish Government. So very Lady Smith. So very groupthink.

In the end, Lady Smith made me agree to meet with her on 20th October 2016. This was intended to be the final push to try to force me to resign. I wouldn’t have resigned, no matter what she said. By that stage, I fundamentally did not trust her or any of the others. She emailed me a few times with arrangements, then changed arrangements. I replied immediately. Every time. Didn’t want her to think I was moping about feeling sorry for myself and worrying about whether I was going to die. I wanted her to see that I was working at home, and away from the immediate pressures she and the groupthink were putting me under every single day. Lady Smith even thanked me for my prompt replies.

So the scenario is this. I was diagnosed with cancer on 10th October 2016. I’m devastated and worried out of my mind. On 12th October 2016, Macaulay is communicating the latest manufactured escalation in the campaign to force me to resign. At this stage, they all know that I’m very ill but don’t have a diagnosis as far as they know. I tell Macaulay on the evening of 12th October 2016 about the cancer diagnosis. He tells Lady Smith the next day. I’ve been allowed to work at home from 11th October 2016 because I’m unwell. This is the matrix of knowledge for the responsible, rights and trauma-aware, experienced decision maker who, at that point, is also an experienced judge of the Court of Session. Oh, and of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. You know, concerned with rights in the workplace?

What does this responsible and knowledgeable decision-maker do?

There is a range of measures based on the rights and responsibilities set out in the various scenarios provided for in the Equality Act 2010. Cancer is an automatically qualifying disability. So failure to make reasonable accommodations for someone who’s been diagnosed with cancer may well amount to disability discrimination if you’re the decision maker. Or worse, maybe. Harassment or victimisation under the act’s provisions about disability discrimination. What do you do? What does the responsible, trauma-informed, right and honourable, decision maker do?

I sent an email to Lady Smith at 9.02 am on 21st October 2016, the day I was supposed to be meeting with her. I attached a letter from my GP informing that I was suffering from acute anxiety because of my cancer diagnosis and the constant pressure from Lady Smith and the groupthink to resign. I told her I wouldn’t be coming into the office to meet with her. I also asked about the inquiry’s policy on sickness and leave of absence. I knew that there was no such policy. An honest answer might be to say so.

Lady Smith replied by email at 11.17 am. This is the material part of her reply:

“Regarding your ongoing work, please would you just email Colin with what you have done so far. In light of the clear advice in your GP’s letter to stop work immediately, you need to refrain from working at all. Also, had we met this morning, if our discussions had not concluded, I would, because of the concerns set out in the email I sent you on Monday, have directed you to stop doing Inquiry work in the meantime.

I am not sure why you are asking about the Inquiry’s policy on sickness and absence. Such policies apply to employees but you are not an employee. Nor are you, in employment law terms, a worker. Indeed, your appointment letter states expressly that your appointment does not constitute an offer or contract of employment and does not attract any salary, pension or similar benefits. Nor does it have any of the features of a contract of employment. I should, perhaps, reiterate that, as I mentioned to you before, I consider that your position in relation to the Inquiry is that you have a ‘zero hours’ appointment with your rights limited to the entitlement to be paid, at the determination rate, for such work done that you have been asked by the Inquiry to do.”

As you can see, in the first paragraph, Lady Smith was trying to achieve, because of my cancer, what she had been unable to do while I could resist. Stop me working on the inquiry. Disability discrimination, not to mention that it’s unconscionably callous. A cruel and very, very dangerous person. Apparently devoid of a normal component of compassion for others. And what about the law?

But the second paragraph really shows how dangerous she is. You’re in the position of power, the decision maker. You’re dealing with a person facing the trauma and scary uncertainty of a cancer diagnosis with all of its implications for the future, or no future, and what it all might look like.

If you’re Lady Smith, you cannot resist the opportunity to put the boot in. What about that? Someone who can act like that in this situation is a danger to cancer sufferers in the workplace. That’s because how you’re treated shouldn’t depend on whether she likes you or not. A zero-hours contract? This is a reference to a Ministerial Determination determining that my working hours on the inquiry would be uncapped (in contrast with Peoples, whose hours were thankfully capped at 40 per week) and paid at £140 per hour until the end of the inquiry. This Determination is still in place, now in 2023. It’s never been rescinded. To try to classify that as a zero-hours appointment is typically perverse and very, very nasty. Moreover, it’s a really stupid thing to put in writing. Someone might include it in a publication about you. It makes you look as cruel as your behaviour demonstrates you to be. Fundamentally lacking in the responsible and balanced decision-making context. And with a defective analysis in law, which appears to be entirely oblivious to the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010.

Is this reply to a cancer sufferer what you would expect from a trauma-informed “judge” in a child abuse inquiry? You decide.

I didn’t reply. To be honest, although I was usually able to dismiss Lady Smith as a bully, I found this quite upsetting.

1 https://www.bcos.org.uk/Portals/0/McLellan/363924_WEB.pdf

We need to know the prognosis.

Although it didn’t need a reply, Lady Smith behaved according to her apparently driven cruelty by instructing Macaulay to pursue her order that I should reply. After I had had surgery and had been discharged from ICU, I saw that Macaulay had emailed me while I was actually undergoing surgery on 31st October 2016. Disability discrimination while actually in surgery. Only Lady Smith could achieve that. The personification of disability discrimination. A walking manifestation of disability discrimination.

Macaulay’s email was sent on 31st October 2016, at 15.37 hours. I was actually undergoing full abdominal surgery, under general anaesthetic, at that very time. The message read:

“Hello John

I hope you are progressing as well as possible in the circumstances.

Lady Smith has asked me to contact you in connection with an e-mail sent to you on 21st October to which she is hoping for a reply. It may be that you didn’t receive it because I am aware that e-mails I sent to your child abuse address did not get through for whatever technical reason.

Colin”.

What a couple of monsters. I have never replied.

After surgery on 31st October 2016, I was looked after in ICU until 3rd November 2016. I was completely spaced out in ICU. I barely remember it. I remember feeling really vulnerable when I was discharged from ICU. ICU was very quiet and peaceful. The ward was chaotic in comparison, with lots of noise, visitors, TV, clinical interventions etc. I was attended to by a student doctor who looked unfeasibly young to be necessarily qualified. The cannula she inserted into my hand was not well located. It became infected. I felt really insecure. I felt scared. I felt really physically weak, a couple of days post-op. Still on morphine. With a big wound in the centre of my being.

At about 3.28 pm, my phone started buzzing. Someone was phoning me. It was Macaulay. I handed the phone to my wife. She didn’t catch the call but phoned him back outside the ward. She told him I was just out of intensive care and to leave me alone. Macaulay made it clear he wasn’t just calling on his own behalf. He was asserting the authority of Lady Smith. Macaulay said, “It’s just we’re looking for an update, a prognosis”. Unconscionable. My wife told him that my prognosis was an entirely private matter. In fact, the material on which the prognosis depended was off to histology for analysis and staging. He was still talking when the call was ended. It only lasted 1 minute, 12 seconds. She was too upset to take any more. Harassment.

To add further injury to insult, harassment and discrimination, I had submitted two fee notes for the work I’d done from home, with permission, while waiting to have surgery. Those fee notes were for work carried out on 11th, 12th, 15th, and 17th to 20th October 2016. After I was eventually discharged from hospital on 8th November 2016, I saw that these hadn’t been paid. That was unusual and had never happened before. I got my clerk to enquire.

Lady Smith had instructed that my fee notes for that time, after my cancer diagnosis, when she had authorised me to work from home, should not be paid. Those fees still haven’t been paid at the time of writing this, almost eight years later. She hadn’t seen evidence that I’d been working. Swear words fail me.

After surgery, I felt that I’d never get out of hospital. In fact, I was only in for eight nights. But it felt much longer. I even felt that I became institutionalised. It really was a life-changing experience. I was completely dependent on the nursing and auxiliary staff. My surgeon, Mr Berlansky, was the person whose view of my progress was vitally important. I’ll tell you more about all that later. But I felt weak and scared. And for good reason. That’s important here because, while I was really unwell, I became sort of terrified about Lady Smith, Macaulay and the others. There was a factual basis for that because Macaulay had been sending me emails and phoning me on Lady Smith’s behalf. I was having cancer surgery. And they wanted rid of me. To cancel me. So why continue to pursue me while I was weak and in hospital? To intimidate, harass and victimise me. I was convinced that Lady Smith’s behaviour was so extreme, so self-evidently unacceptably cruel, that everyone would immediately see how dangerous she is. That’s not the way it turned out, unfortunately. They covered up for her cruelty and unlawfulness. They continue to do so, as you’ll see. Especially Dunlop, the great Faculty reformer. The Dean who focused on Wellbeing for Faculty members. Except me. I was othered for that one.

I was discharged from hospital on Tuesday, 8th November 2016. I was so pleased and relieved. I’ll never forget the feeling. It was like a new dawn. There was even a special red sky at dawn that morning. I’ve still got a photo of it. I had it on a mug. My discharge summary made reference to concern on my part about work colleagues threatening me. Clinical staff were even asking my wife if I was imagining things. They were sceptical about whether what I was reporting was actually happening. By lawyers. She was able to reassure them that it was true and that I was sane. I was so weak I could hardly walk. I had to have an arm of support. I had a big hole and a wound in my abdomen. I felt vulnerable and weak. I was genuinely scared of what Lady Smith, Macaulay and the groupthink might do. I thought I knew by then that Lady Smith knew no limits or boundaries. If she thought she could do something to me, she’d do it. Even then, I didn’t appreciate the lengths that a dangerous operator like Lady Smith would go to. I do now. Now that I’ve been monstered. You see, in the disability discrimination scenario that was happening to me, I was still just at the othering stage. The stage where, although you have rights, you’re somehow, in some nebulous way, not able to rely on those rights. You’re other.

The clinical plan was that I’d hopefully physically recover from surgery during November 2016 and be strong enough to begin a punishing schedule of chemotherapy on 6th December 2016. My wound needed to be dressed by the nursing staff at my GP practice at least once a week. It was sore and became infected. I felt so grateful to the clinical and hospital staff. It was a truly humbling experience.

Physical weakness, uncertainty about whether I still had cancer, and, if not, whether it would come back, were real sources of anxiety for me. But that anxiety was overlaid and exacerbated by the realisation that Lady Smith, mainly through Macaulay, continued to pursue me to assert herself. Even in my frail and weak physical state. I was not to be afforded peace, privacy, compassion or respect for my circumstances by the right and honourable one. Nor were my family.

Being the sneaky operator he is, Macaulay began to make sure that any communications he wanted to get to me were made through our mutual Faculty of Advocates Stable Clerk, Liz Manderson. This was a particularly Macaulay-like sneaky medium. He knew that Liz would have to do as he asked. He’s a senior member of our Stable, Arnot Manderson. He knew, too, that Liz and I regularly communicated with one another and had one another’s mutual trust and respect.

So Macaulay sneaked into the clerks’ area at Parliament House on 15th November 2016 and spoke to Liz Manderson. He asked her to pass on a message to me, after first of all pretending to be concerned about my health. This was one week post hospital discharge. I was still largely in my bed and not completely on my feet yet, post-surgery. I was unable to sleep normally. Liz phoned me to pass on the message. I asked Liz to record it in an email and send it to me. I asked her to do the same for any further communications by Macaulay. I also asked Liz not to pass on any detail about my health to him. You can see him sneaking up to Liz, pretending to be concerned about my health and pumping her for information. Liz is a really open person. She’d have had no suspicion that she should be on guard at all. He’s also a very senior member of our stable.

Then came the message. This is what it said:

“Hi John

I hope you are feeling good today.

Colin Macaulay came in to the office yesterday afternoon and asked how you were, I updated him on your health.

Colin has been asked by her Ladyship, Lady Smith if arrangements can be put in place to collect your Inquiry laptop, blackberry phone and any Inquiry papers from your home. It is to do with the data protection act.

Can you please let me know when would be convenient to you.

Thanks

Liz”.

This was Macaulay communicating the latest threat from Lady Smith. My inquiry materials were kept in my study under lock and key. There were no data protection issues. Lady Smith was simply trying to complete the task of erasing me from the SCAI. And trying to do it when she knew that I was at my weakest. As I’ve told you already, my fees for work carried out at home while sick and awaiting surgery hadn’t been paid. Lady Smith had instructed that they were not to be paid. Utterly vindictive and devoid of normal, compassionate, judgement that most human beings can aspire to. Right and honourable? Don’t think so.

And it didn’t stop there.

On 16th November 2016, I saw that Jamieson had circulated on 7th November 2016 that Swinney had made ministerial determinations to appoint two additional junior counsel to the SCAI. Lady Smith appointed Ceit-Anna MacLeod, Advocate. Of course, this exacerbated my feelings that I was being replaced. And I was being replaced. But it also made me laugh. It was funny because MacLeod had applied to the SCAI in April 2016 for work taking evidence from witnesses. I was part of the interview panel with Summers. I liked MacLeod and thought she was ok. Summers was having none of it. She made a big, anxious, issue of it. She was adamant that MacLeod was too junior at the Bar and didn’t have the necessary experience for such an important role. I laughed when I wondered whether she had raised a peep when Lady Smith appointed MacLeod as her own choice, no interview required. It tells you something about Lady Smith. She just does as she wants. A law unto herself. Right and honourable. Born that way. No interviews or any of that nonsense. No one questions her. It tells you something about the Faculty of Advocates and how it works. It’s that sort of nepotism and favour that creates and reinforces links and connections. Links and connections built on fees and where your money is going to come from. Remember Macaulay’s recollections about Hardie helping him when he was a young Advocate? It also tells you something about Summers. Adamantly stamping her feet, preventing MacLeod’s appointment to take inquiry evidence in April 2016 when her intention was to undermine Susan O’Brien and everything she wanted to do. She was going to make it part of her resignation issue then. Not a peep when the same insufficiently experienced counsel is appointed to the much more significant role by Lady Smith in November 2016. Why didn’t she resign, again, on principle? Because she has none. Calls into question the ability of Summers to exercise balanced, objective and consistent professional judgement. And more. Her honesty.

But Lady Smith isn’t one to be deterred when she decides on a course of action. Not by cancer. Not by frailty and the need for recovery. As it turns out, not even by the law.

On 28th November 2016, I got an email from Liz Manderson. It said:

“Hi John

On the back of my conversation with CJMCA on Wednesday 23rd Nov 2016, CJMCA phoned me on Thursday 24th Nov.

CJMCA says this does not come from me – it’s comes from Lady Smith. Lady Smith wrote to John on the 21st October asking for John to send CJMCA the work he had done and nothing has appeared. That’s why payment has been held back. Re your fee for work undertaken on the 23rd – 29th May, 38 hours. Lady Smith knows on the 27th May you were doing a Hearing. Did you make an allowance for the preparation and attendance.

Thanks

Liz”.

You’ll remember that Lady Smith’s email to me on 21st October 2016 was the zero hours contract email? You can see that what Lady Smith was now communicating, through Macaulay’s sneakiness, was an assertion that I was supposed to have been working, summarising what I’d been working on while I was ill, working at home, and waiting for surgery. While I was responding promptly to her messages and she was thanking me for doing so. I was obviously working. The degree of cruelty and callousness is breathtaking. And now a question was being raised about a previous fee note from May 2016. Blatant harassment. That was a week when we were all in London meeting with the IICSA team. If anything, I had vastly undercharged for my time away from home on inquiry business. Lady Smith was trying to found on her knowledge that I had appeared in an appeal in the Inner House during that week. All it shows is that I worked too many hours at a time when I was ill. But it also shows that time was being spent groupthinking about how to harass me. Even when Lady Smith, and Macaulay, knew I was so frail and vulnerable. Shame on both, and the other morons setting this up. Public money was being spent on this. In fact, Lady Smith has now spent very considerable sums of public money targeting, setting up and fighting with me. You should have a look.

Why, you may be wondering? That’s not entirely clear from the narrative, just yet. But it became clear when I eventually produced my summary of the work that I had done, in my Note dated 1st April 2019. I infer that’s the real reason that the civil servants – Murray Sinclair, Donald Henderson and, yes, Swinney – wanted me, and Susan O’Brien’s original panel, off the inquiry.

Lady Smith’s Genghis Khan approach in this context, regardless of the law, actually had the ultimate purpose of covering up, by determination not to investigate, serious allegations of organised child trafficking and sexual abuse involving judges and members of the legal profession, among others. That’s why.

I asked Liz Manderson for a summary of her communications with Macaulay about all of this. She sent me another message on 28th November 2016:

“Morning John

When I arrived back in the office on Wednesday 23rd Nov 2016, Andrew said Colin MacAulay had been in the office on Tuesday afternoon looking for me. Andrew asked if I could give him a ring. I phoned CJMCA on Wednesday morning 23rd November and left a message for him to ring me back. I spoke to CJMCA around lunchtime. The first thing CJMCA asked how is John. I told CJMCA I had just spoken to you on your way back from the nurse just getting your dressing changed as you had an infection and got more antibiotics. I told CJMCA you have good and bad days and you would be starting chemo before Christmas, which would probably not finish until June 2017. He asked if I had heard back from you re the collection of the Inquiry laptop, black bury and papers. I said yes, you would get things sorted out but there was some material you wanted to keep. CJMCA said that was fine. I mentioned to CJMA you would not be returning the various items until your two outstanding fees were paid in full. Both issued in Oct 2016. CJMCA said he doesn’t know anything about this but would pass this on to the Inquiry team. I advised CJMCA of the date of issue of your fees, amounts and that fees before and after that date for other members had all been paid in full. I did say this might just be an oversight or the fees might have been misplaced. I said I was more than happy to send the Inquiry team a copy of your outstanding fees. CJMCA said he would pass this on.

Thanks

Liz”.

So you can see what was happening here. Macaulay was clearly being required to do Lady Smith’s dirty work for her. It seems he chose to try to do that in his customary sneaky manner through the clerks. Typically pathetic and cowardly. And this was happening within an organisation that, even at the time, had an Equality and Diversity Policy. It prevented members of Faculty from acting in a discriminatory manner to others. I even had the support of the then Dean and Vice Dean, Gordon Jackson and Angela Grahame. But they had nothing to offer in the face of a determined campaign of disability discrimination by Lady Smith. You’ll see how things nosedive when I don’t have the support of the Dean and Vice Dean anymore. When it’s Dunlop and his regime of meek, fawning followers. And he overtly and aggressively supports Lady Smith. You’ll also see that Dunlop is actually trying to argue in the Employment Tribunal that the protections in section 48 of the Equality Act 2010, about “Advocates”, don’t apply to him. Is this really what lawyers are meant to do? Is it ethical? Don’t think so.

I’d been warned repeatedly by my Doctors that I must stop engaging with this hostility from Lady Smith because I needed to focus all of my energy on physical and mental recovery in order to be strong enough for chemotherapy. So I gave my clerk my detailed responses to what Lady Smith was harassing me about and said I wouldn’t be available for any further discussion for a number of weeks or months. That prompted the following sneaky communication from Lady Smith via Macaulay, via Liz, on 2nd December 2016:

“Hi John

I hope you are ok today.

I left a message on your mobile yesterday saying Mr Macaulay had come in to the office (Thursday 1st Dec), Lady Smith must have you laptop, black bury and any Inquiry papers back ASAP. They are prepared to come down to your house or to PH to collect. Once they have been returned Lady Smith with seriously consider paying your outstanding fees.

Thanks

Liz”.

It goes without saying that I didn’t trust Lady Smith, or Macaulay, at all. The Dean, Gordon Jackson QC, agreed to help me if he could. He was encouraged to do so by the Vice Dean, Angela Grahame QC. Their willingness to at least try to help falls to be sharply contrasted with the present Dean, Roddy Dunlop, who acts as counsel for, and otherwise conspires with, Lady Smith. Roddy. Calls himself @RoddyQC on Twitter. He doesn’t do what he says he does. I mean as Dean of Faculty. Changing the culture. Anti-bullying and anti-discrimination champion. Not if you’re me, he isn’t. I’ve sued him, too, in relation to all of this and his blind support of Lady Smith’s bullying and discrimination. I’ve raised a claim against him for unlawful victimisation. A supreme ego. Dangerous. A fixer. In almost everything – Trams, Celtic, NHSGGC, Salmond, Lady Smith and SCAI and much, much more – and Twitter legal adviser to the world at large. You should have a look. Anointed from the beginning of time to be Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

Jackson had a meeting with Lady Smith in Glasgow on my behalf on 7th December 2016. This is what he wrote to me afterwards:

“John

I’ve had a meeting with Lady Smith. Without going back over all that has happened I think there are a few issues that if resolved would help the way forward.

Your appointment has not been terminated as far as Lady Smith is concerned. Subject to your health and the other conflict of interest restrictions previously discussed there is no reason why you cannot be asked to carry out work in the future.

I do consider that you will need to return the items requested such as lap top etc. and you should arrange to do that as soon as possible.

I appreciate you want payment of the two outstanding fees. I have seen these and they simply list the days and hours worked at home. Lady Smith wants some further specification of what was done and that is perhaps not unreasonable. My impression is that this doesn’t need to be very full or detailed and if that can be provided the fees can then be paid. Certainly I will push for that to happen.

More importantly look after yourself and get better as soon as possible.

Gordon”.

I went back to him on a few of those points. I wanted to be clear that Lady Smith wasn’t saying I’d done anything wrong. I hadn’t. All I’d done was not resign when she and the groupthink were applying all manner of escalating pressure, while I was very ill, to try to force me to do that. I also wanted to be paid my fees that had been cruelly and illegitimately withheld. I also wanted an apology and recognition that, for a self-employed person with a family and a very scary, uncertain, future, that was a very important matter. So was the issue of whether or not I’d be able to work on SCAI work when I was well enough to do so, whenever that may be. I had no idea what was going to happen to me.

This is what I wrote to Jackson:

“Gordon

Thank you for this and for taking the time you have taken on my behalf.

Can I simply be clear that Lady Smith is not suggesting in any way that I have done anything wrong, or disconform to normal practice, even in the detail provided in the fee notes? What is being requested is a departure from the norm to date. I therefore resent the implication that I may not have done work as fee’d for.

As you are aware, I do not accept that my appointment has not been, effectively, terminated. The terms in which she has inflated any legitimate conflict of interest consideration make that clear. It appears to me (taken along with Lady Smith’s personalised course of harassment of me) to be inconsistent with a continuing appointment that I am asked to return laptop, blackberry and papers etc. and not given the opportunity to work at home as and when I am able to do so over the coming months. However, having sought your advice, I will do that.

I will also provide further specification of work undertaken in the weeks commencing 10 and 17 October 2016.

Thank you again for your help and good wishes.

John”.

This was Jackson’s reply:

“John

There was certainly no accusation made by Lady Smith.

She also maintains your appointment has not been terminated but as you will not be working in the near future it is appropriate for data protection compliance that the items be returned. I appreciate you take a different view about your appointment being terminated but I have neither the locus or expertise to comment on that one way or another.

If there is a continuing problem about fees being paid please let me know as I would certainly hope that can be resolved.

Kind regards

Gordon”.

So, I’m asking you to take special note of what Lady Smith told Jackson. Because it’s not what she said later on when she had to be challenged by being the first Scottish “Judge” ever to be accused of demonstrable allegations (which remain true and are produced later on) of unlawful disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Lady Smith is a liar. You can reach your own conclusions on her astonishingly cruel treatment of me when I was at my most vulnerable. When any normal person would most likely feel moved to a compassionate response. I’ll pay the fees, we can see what work you can do later. Just recover from surgery, get through your eight cycles of chemotherapy and get better. You need to be cancer free if you can be. Type thing? No, not Lady Smith and the groupthink. Read on. Assisted by others like Brian Napier KC, demeaning himself on her behalf before Employment Tribunals. And Dunlop in the Court of Session and later as Dean. Purporting to discipline me on Lady Smith’s behalf in August 2022. CC’d to “Lady Anne Smith.” A complete joke. Except he takes himself so seriously.

That’s the thing about the othering process that the groupthink civil servants on the SCAI are experts in. They make it so that the norms, laws and rules that apply to everyone don’t apply, for no justifiable reason, to a particular, singled-out, targeted person. In this campaign, it’s me. It was previously Susan O’Brien. I don’t get to rely on disability discrimination law. Now that’s not because it doesn’t apply to me and to Lady Smith in the SCAI. It’s just because she’s Lady Smith who demands, and gets, support from all of these fawning fools. It’s a really, really sick form of corruption. Being applied here to a person at his most vulnerable moment in adult life, at least so far. And it got worse when she was challenged. And worse. And worse. Right up to and including the media monstering. And no one challenges her or even allows her to be held to account. Is this really “judicial”, or even acceptable, behaviour of a public official? Doesn’t it call into question her ability to exercise normal, rational, human judgement in ordinary matters affecting people? Never mind the extreme circumstances affecting victims of child sexual and other abuse.

Did Lady Smith leave me alone to recover from surgery, start chemotherapy and put all of the work-related anxiety out of my mind? Not on your Nellie.

Consistent with her indisputable status as a bully with defective judgement, the Genghis Khan persona identified by her judicial colleagues, Lady Smith, struck again. Before Christmas in 2016. Just before Christmas.

At 16.40 on 21st December 2016, I got an email from Vice Dean Angela Grahame. It read:

“Hi John

Hope you are coping with your treatment, and I’m really sorry to bother you.

Would you have time for a very quick chat?

Angela”.

I phoned Angela. She told me Lady Smith had been in contact with her, alleging that I was communicating with survivor groups or some nonsense like that. Lady Smith wanted it to be passed on that she was considering raising proceedings against me for interim interdict in the Court of Session. A home game for her. Happy Christmas. I had to instruct and lodge a caveat.

I was hardly able to leave my bed, never mind whip up trouble for Lady Smith with survivor groups. Also, I’d been warned by the Doctors. You must put all the work stuff out of your mind if you stand a realistic chance of a full recovery. This was Lady Smith trying to make sure that didn’t happen. She really has great judgement, doesn’t she? If you’re Genghis Khan.

And so ended 2016. Worrying about what Lady Smith might try to do to me while I was trying to focus on just getting through eight cycles of chemotherapy and the hoped-for recovery.

At all times, Lady Smith tried to assert her supreme and unquestionable authority. This is the essential element of her whole concept of being and her principal modus operandi. You can see it in the actions of Macaulay on her behalf. This is a guy who’s been an “independent” Advocate practising at the Bar for in excess of 40 years. Yet, somehow, he feels compelled to tarnish his longstanding relations with even his clerk to comply with what Lady Smith wants him to do. No matter how gruesome. Do you really think that Macaulay wanted to harass me in the way that the records detailed above demonstrate? He’s a bloke without any substantial backbone. There’s no way he’d have been acting like that of his own volition.

Then there are the groupthinking civil servants on the SCAI. They now have a supreme leader who must be obeyed. Why? Apparently, because she’s a judge. Lady Smith was a Senator of the Court of Session at that time. An Inner House Judge. But that has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing, supplementing or otherwise bolstering the SCAI. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that the chair of an inquiry panel may be a judge. No doubt that is so that the findings of a public inquiry, in appropriate circumstances, may be more robustly stated or that a greater degree of substance, scrutiny and authority is added to the inquiry’s subject matter. But appointing a judge as chair of an inquiry panel doesn’t add anything to the powers available to the judge under the Inquiries Act 2005. The powers given to a judge under the act are the same as those given to a chair who is not a judge.

It’s important to note, however, that when a judge takes up an appointment as an inquiry chair under the 2005 Act, that judge steps outside the normal, rarified, judicial environment of the court structure in which the judge normally functions. The judge becomes the chair of an inquiry panel under the Act. If the judge is the only member of the panel, the judge is the panel under the act. If the judge seeks to act as a human resources manager, but with the supreme and unquestionable authority that a judge normally has in a court, the act doesn’t provide any authority for such an approach. Often, you’ll understand, public inquiries under the act have large numbers of people working on them in all sorts of different capacities. If the judge, as inquiry panel in terms of the 2005 Act, is minded to act as manager of people, the judge is well-advised to know the detail of the rights provided for in the Equality Act 2010.

I’m asking you to note, at this point, the part quoted from Lady Smith’s email to me on 21st October 2016. If you’re like me, you’ll maybe wonder how a judge could call it so wrong. How could a judge be stupid enough to go on about a zero-hours contract? And about me not having any rights in the work environment when I had cancer? Supreme authority or supremely unlawful? You can decide. But, to my mind, definitely supremely cruel and concerningly inhumane. Lady Smith’s treatment of me when I had cancer seems to me to raise real, enduring and very concerning questions about her ability to exercise normal, compassionate, judgement in relation to a fellow human facing the trauma and ordeal of a cancer diagnosis. A person. With a family.

The relentless pursuit of me by Lady Smith, through Macaulay’s sneakiness, isn’t justifiable. But why would she do that? Surely it’s not just because she didn’t like me? My view, based on my whole experience looking back from this point, is this: Lady Smith’s relentless pursuit of me; the othering “conflict of interest” process fuelled by the civil servants, seeking sanction of their demands stamped with Lady Smith’s supreme authority; and the sheer vigour with which all of those aspects were attempted, were all justified in the groupthink zone by the need for the SCAI to steer away from the organised child trafficking matters that I considered important. With alleged involvement of lawyers and judges.

It seems reasonable to me to infer that Lady Smith’s agenda was driven by this imperative in order that sensitive matters that many Scottish lawyers knew a lot about wouldn’t be investigated by SCAI. This was the reason for the calling in of Summers for “supervision” by Sinclair in 2016. This was the reason for the “nuclear option” threat by Henderson on 7th January 2016 at the very start of the Inquiry. This was the reason for the othering, and subsequent monstering, undermining and effective removal, of Susan O’Brien. This was the reason that Scotland didn’t want Michael Lamb, a world-renowned expert, prying into the dirty secrets of some at the top, which many others, also at the top, knew lots about. This was the reason that I had to be removed from SCAI from day one: I knew (or they thought I knew) where the bodies were buried. This was the reason that Lady Smith had complete confidence that, no matter how extreme and outrageous her conduct was towards me when I had cancer, she would be supported by a system calibrated to cover up, where necessary, rather than to fearlessly investigate and learn from, the organised sexual and other exploitation of children and young people who deserved care and nurture from others.

When Susan O’Brien was first appointed as chair of SCAI and took up office in October 2015, who was one of the first to contact her with a lunch offer and suggestions about how to run a public inquiry? Lord Hardie. You and I are the chairs of the only two public inquiries running in Scotland just now, type-thing. Even at that stage, Susan told me Hardie was keen to emphasise that the SCAI should be careful not simply to believe historical allegations by alleged survivors without scrutiny. There may be something in that advice. But it appeared suspicious when the advisor might be the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The Death Text.

This chapter sets out in distressing detail the extent and degree of my vulnerability after cancer surgery. The detail explains the physical and psychological trauma I suffered at the time of sustained harassment and abuse from a determined and cruel bully, Lady Smith. This chapter details my efforts to recover and to begin again to pursue important work at home and internationally.

Lady Smith was definitely causing me a lot of anxiety in late 2016 after I was discharged from hospital. And my family. I felt utterly helpless. Jackson and Grahame at least offered some support, if not protection. This tells you something important about the Faculty of Advocates and the way things work. If a bully like Lady Smith has it in for you, you’re just to suck it up, really. There’s a very limited amount that even the Dean and Vice Dean can do to protect you. They certainly can’t stop her cruelty. And that’s if the Dean is sympathetic. That can, and did, change when the identity of the Dean changed. Dunlop. He actively supported Lady Smith in her discrimination, harassment and victimisation of me. Then the Faculty’s against you too. And most of his sickeningly fawning Twitter followers. Scary. One of my many, significant, faults is that I won’t lie down to bullies, as I hope you might comfortably conclude.

Despite all that was, and had been, happening, I was utterly euphoric when I was discharged from hospital on 8th November 2016. I was honestly really glad to be alive. I think that’s a reflection on the trauma of the diagnosis and surgery. As soon as you have abdominal surgery you become really weak and definitely ill. You become acutely aware that you could die. It might actually happen about now, depending on how things go.

One night in hospital, on 4th November 2016, I thought I was dying. It was a Friday night. In the ward. The TV was on, and I had no control over it. Too loud. Still Game was on. A camp Glasgow comedy. Not something I’d ever watched. I had a huge, raised, temperature. I was ill. After having half of the right side of my bowel removed on the previous Monday, my bowel wasn’t functioning. I had some kind of infection. I was delirious. It was really frightening. The feeling seemed to go on and on for hours and hours.

I honestly thought I might die. I’d never been in that situation before. I thought I’d better prepare myself. I was saying my prayers. I was making irrational connections. My older brother had died on 3rd November 1978 when he was just 19. In Law Hospital, Wishaw. We lived in Hamilton at the time. I was 15. It was awful. Pulmonary embolism. I thought it must be my time now, near enough the same date. Over a period of hours, I constructed a text which was eventually sent to my wife. Passwords, account details, wills, insurance policies, all sorts. We later laughed about it and called it the Death Text. But at the time, I honestly thought I was dying. Here’s why. It’s a wee bit gruesome.

Because my bowel wasn’t working, I was unable to get rid of faecal matter in the normal way. That was now causing acute problems and had to be dealt with. The high temperature appeared to be caused by infection. The nursing staff were slipping in unwelcome opinions. Your wound must be infected. Maybe the bowel repair hasn’t worked, and leaking faecal matter is causing the infection. Maybe you’ll need emergency surgery. I was absolutely wiped out physically by then. I hadn’t eaten properly for days. I was really, really weak. I had a big hole in the centre of my abdomen. I couldn’t move in bed, never mind walk. I was thinking that if I have to have emergency surgery, then I won’t make it. I’m just not strong enough.

I felt awful, really, really sick. It was terrible. I honestly thought this must be how you feel when you’re about to die. I felt that bad. Two male nurses were helping me. They were nice guys, really caring. But they were chatting as if I wasn’t there about what might be causing the infection. Not helpful. The Charge Nurse decided that they had to insert a nasogastric tube and try to drain off some of the faecal matter that had built up. I’ve never been able to suffer anything being put down my throat or up my nose like that. I was boaking at the endoscopy in October. The two of them tried to insert this tube up my nostril. It was awful. Both were directly in front of me as I was propped up with pillows behind me on the bed. The nurses were sort of bickering, point-scoring with one another. There had been chat about who knew another bloke best. A competition. I was delirious. Still Game was on in the background. I couldn’t distinguish between what was in Still Game and what was, in reality, happening before me. I sort of thought I was part of some of the stuff going on in Still Game. Sort of like Sam Tyler in Life on Mars.

Then, all of a sudden, it was intolerable. I was sick. Vomited. Everywhere. All over the two nurses who were vying with one another right in front of me. It wasn’t normal vomit, which is disgusting enough. It was faecal matter. Sort of like putrid Bovril with bits in it. Horrific. I know, I can hear you thinking. Not the first time shit’s come out of his mouth.

I felt immediate relief. Immediate. Absolutely amazing. The poor blokes in front of me were covered in this stuff. I was so sorry. But so relieved. I was able, almost immediately, to weakly manoeuvre myself off the bed and slowly wind my pathetic route to the shower room on the other side of the ward. I had a shower. It took me ages. It was too hot, but I didn’t care. I felt so much better than I had. And I wasn’t dying.

I eventually got back into bed and managed to fall asleep. I slept for maybe a couple of hours. Then the same thing happened, all over again. Same nurses. Same delirium. Same high temperature. Same feeling like I’m about to die. Nasogastric tube insertion. Vomit. Faecal matter. All over the nurses, again. Another abortive attempt to insert a tube. Immediate relief. Renewed apologies. Another shower. Sleep. Then a couple of hours later, the same feeling again. This time the nurses tied a smaller size of nasogastric tube. And guess what? It worked. I was kitted out with a tube going into my stomach and coming out my nose.

The other essential pieces of the kit were added the next morning. A sort of bag hanging from my nose into which faecal matter was draining. My young people visited the next day. I could see the horror on their faces. It was absolutely disgusting. My bowel being drained into a bag and routed through my nose. But do you know what? It worked. It allowed my bowel repair to settle down. Eventually, over the next few days, my bowel slowly began to work. Without any emergency surgery.

At the ward round the next day, it was my surgeon in charge. They seemed to take turns on who would lead each day. That morning it was Mr Martin Berlansky, the surgeon who had operated on me. A very tall, very handsome, Slovakian. I remember thinking, how on earth was I so lucky to have such a skilled surgeon available to me? The NHS. Amazing. I watched as he spoke authoritatively in his high-pitched European voice and accent. The other clinicians in the modest crowd seemed to hang on his every word as he swatted away doubters and asserted that he’d seen these problems many times before. No need for intervention. The bowel will eventually kick in and work properly. He sat down beside my bed afterwards and spoke to me directly, which I appreciated. He acknowledged my current distress and tried to encourage me by explaining his clinical assessment based on his skill and his experience with the application of that skill in surgery. That was good enough for me. I had to persevere and have faith in his judgement.

I wasn’t able to eat. Little pots of custard. And diluting orange juice. Little amounts in a little glass. Sucked in through a little straw. Because I was running a high temperature, I was thirsty all the time. I was swilling this sweet, diluted orange juice around my teeth. My teeth hadn’t been brushed as normal. They became very sensitive over a couple of days. In my continuing delirium, I became fixated on my sore and sensitive teeth. They felt horrible. Once I’d been discharged from hospital, my young people were laughing and telling me some of the crazy things I was saying. They described one occasion, at the sensitive teeth time. I didn’t even remember it. They were sitting round my bed when suddenly I said, “Well, you know what I always say? Brush’em, Floss’em, Mouthwash’em”. I‘d never said any such thing before. I’d never even heard that said. Neither had my family. Delirium. Absolutely crazy. And to be delivered like Dick Dastardly’s dog, Muttley.

So it was while I was in this very vulnerable state, beforehand, and afterwards, that Macaulay, on Lady Smith’s instructions, was harassing me. While both knew I’d been diagnosed with cancer and required surgery. And privacy. And peace. You’ll understand that, in the circumstances, Macaulay’s unrelenting and unnecessary pursuit of me on Lady Smith’s behalf caused me “fear and alarm.” It would most likely cause the hypothetical reasonable person to suffer fear and alarm in all the circumstances. Call me a lawyer, but that makes it an offence in Scotland as unlawful conduct towards a disabled person, receiving emergency treatment in hospital, in terms of section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. They had to convene a court of five judges to overrule Lady Smith’s incorrect interpretation of that section in a case called Jolly. It cost the taxpayer a fortune and was causing mayhem in the criminal justice system. Ropey.

So, in 2019, I reported these facts as a criminal allegation via the PF at Selkirk to Crown Office. After a few weeks, it came back with a predictable thumbs down. No criminal conduct was the decision. What do you think? That was in the days of Wolffe and Di Rollo. I wasn’t able to find out which of them was involved. The senior prosecutor dealing with it simply stopped replying to my requests for clarification. Is that good enough? Does it stink? Is it a manifestation of corruption? I’d say yes. The facts are pretty clear on the evidence. The crucial facts are corroborated. How is it not criminal conduct? It self-evidently is criminal conduct, but for the fact that it’s Lady Smith, Macaulay and the groupthink involved. Is that good enough? Are these morons above the law? It appears so in Scotland. It’s not the rule of law that’s important. That’s flexible. It’s the rule of lawyers. With an uncertain basis in law for the authority being asserted.

Going back to my recovery from the end of 2016 onwards, I did my best not to think about Lady Smith and the groupthink. The importance of this had been impressed on me time after time by the Doctors. So my first chemo session began on 6th December 2016 at the Margaret Kerr Unit at the BGH. The staff were exceptionally skilled, calm and caring. The chemo regime required an infusion every three weeks. The process took about 3-4 hours, usually in the afternoon. It was an odd and humbling environment. You could find yourself sitting on one of the big, comfy, Parker Knoll-type chairs next to someone much worse off. I met some really nice people, with different experiences and perspectives on life, and on death, in these sessions between December 2016 and June 2017. Some of those people had terminal diagnoses. Humbling to hear their thoughts and to chat. A reminder each time. Life is finite. Even if you’re very important. We’ll all be judged by what we’ve done. Per ea quae facta sunt.

As well as the chemotherapy infusion process, there was daily medication to be taken. The side effects of the combination were explained in detail in advance. It all sounded very scary indeed. Not everyone experiences all of the documented side effects, or to the same degree. I was shocked, scared and taken aback when my throat literally seized up in the cold in December 2016 when I was out with the dog early one morning. It was a frightening experience. I couldn’t breathe at all for several seconds. I experienced this fairly regularly, especially in winter, during my chemotherapy regime. My tastes also changed. I’ve always been a black tea drinker. Loose tea. It tasted horrible during chemo. I’ve never gone back to it. I found it progressively hard to swallow large tablets every day that I knew were poisoning me. And then others so I wouldn’t be sick. But for a purpose. I’ve also lost some physical power, in a sort of nebulous, global way. For example, I’m a prolific, but fairly slow, cyclist now. I’m detectably slower than pre-illness. But I suppose that’s going back to about 2014. I was actually ill during 2015 and 2016 to escalating extent.

From hospital discharge on 8th November until chemo began on 6th December 2016, I had to try to eat as well and as much as I could. I had to get stronger physically. I had rapidly become pretty emaciated in hospital. Lack of food and physical trauma. A big wound in my abdomen. Sore. Physiotherapy to get walking again. I ate easy foods then progressed to more normal stuff. Ice cream with lunch and dinner. Within a relatively short period, I put on a lot of weight. By June 2017, I was about three stone heavier than my normal weight of about 12 stone.

The abdominal surgery had also left me with an abdominal hernia. I still have it. Just an incongruous bulge. Looks like a little belly. But it’s not. It’s actually quite a big deal, if you don’t keep it under careful and disciplined control. At almost 15 stone, it was dangerous and would have required corrective surgery. That would involve a mesh implant. Mr Berlansky’s advice was that I did not want this. It could be complicated. There was no guarantee of a successful and straightforward mesh implant. It was also dangerous to be subjected to further, substantial abdominal surgery. His advice scared me into adopting a fitness regime from about September 2017 when I was able to do that.

I’ve already told you that, despite the anxiety caused by Lady Smith and Macaulay’s harassment while I was ill and vulnerable, I was euphoric about being alive. Ding! Eyes open. Another day! That feeling lasted for a long time. I’d say I felt like that almost every morning until early 2019. I wanted to do all the things that I’d thought I might never do again. Go places that I thought I might never see again. See people. I tried to do all of that from 2017 to early 2019. During this time, I actively tried not to think at all about Lady Smith, Macaulay and the groupthink. And I did it pretty successfully. I had to. I needed to complete my course of chemotherapy and then recover. I needed to lose weight after June 2017 and get fit. That took a long time. But I did it.

I needed to make sure that my focus and attention were diverted from Lady Smith and the SCAI during my recovery period. I remember cycling in about early 2018 and actively driving all thoughts of the unfairness and corruption that had gone on from my mind. I simply couldn’t afford to think about it for the good of my own health and recovery prospects. The unfairness was so marked that thoughts of action were frequently invasive.

Chemotherapy made me progressively wiped out. In the first cycle, I was cocky. I thought it was unpleasant, but I managed to tolerate it. But by mid to late winter 2017, I was increasingly wiped out more regularly. When I say wiped out, I would get up in the morning, have breakfast, fall asleep on the couch, watch TV, fall asleep again, go out as a passenger in the car, fall asleep, and so on. There were long periods of time when I simply had no energy. In fact, it was worse than that. I had an enduring feeling of utterly deep tiredness and discomfort, all day and all night. It was a nebulous, global feeling of being able to do little but sit on the couch, lapsing in and out of consciousness.

At least I was able to travel after chemotherapy ended in June 2017. Until that time, I was effectively unable to travel abroad. I had to be available for my chemo and other appointments. Travel and health insurance would have been problematic. I was relatively lucky. When I first became self-employed, when I started devilling in 1996, I took out some good life cover. I got excellent advice between 1996 and about 2008 from Jim Cowie. Jim is a really sound bloke and a former clerk of court in the Court of Session. So I had a decent level of critical illness and income protection insurance cover, which I’d been paying premiums on for almost twenty years.

My cancer was eventually staged at stage 3. That means there was some distant travel in the lymph nodal system, although that’s just my understanding, and I’m no expert. Mr Berlansky explained that he managed to remove most of the affected lymph nodes. However, there was at least one that was inaccessible and appeared affected. The chemotherapy regime was intended to deal with that and to ensure no cancerous return as best could be done. It was advised and supervised by an expert at the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh.

In and after June 2017, after chemo, I went to some of my favourite places. Millport, Isle of Cumbrae. Cotignac, Provence. Cork, Ireland. Maryland, USA. Porto, Portugal twice. Stavern and Oslo, Norway. Then, in December 2018, Santiago and Valparaiso, Chile. Although these were trips to see friends, they were also focused on my area of special interest since about 2010. Developmentally appropriate questioning of children and adolescents in forensic contexts. Since my first dip into this vitally important discipline in 2010, I have made meaningful friendships and close collaborations with others in different countries and continents who share an understanding of how vitally important it is to bring about change in this area, in the interests of children and of justice. It’s about communication and rights, fairness and quality of evidence and, therefore, legal fact-finding and decision-making. With modest adaptation of questioning techniques by professionals, children everywhere will benefit from enhanced quality of forensic communications. Fewer questions. Less questioning. Less trauma for children. Greater accuracy. All are validated by scientifically, empirical, and demonstrated evidence base. I’ve spent two years writing a book on this subject. It’s presently with publishers. Watch this space.

In 2017, I was also contacted by a team of professionals from Social Work Scotland and Police Scotland, based at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan Castle, Kincardine. They’d been given the task of developing a new Scottish Child Interview Model following discussions that took place and are recorded in the Evidence and Procedure Review, which was commenced in 2015. The team had been given an odd remit which is recorded in the workstream reports concerned with joint investigative interviews with children. This is the Scottish version of the child forensic interview. One of the foremost developmental scientists in the world with expertise in this area is Professor Michael Lamb. Michael Lamb was, of course, a panel member on the original SCAI panel established under Susan O’Brien. He and his collaborators developed the NICHD Protocol for the government of the USA. It is generally regarded as the gold standard for forensic interviews with children. It is used in many countries and jurisdictions all over the world. It provides an evidence-based structured interview protocol, together with a unique questioning methodology that is calibrated to allow questioners to elicit the maximum amount possible for free narrative recall from the memories, and in the words of child victims and witnesses. Oddly, the remit to the Tulliallan-based team directed the team to develop a model based on an approach other than the NICHD Protocol. However, the remit was not prescriptive. The Tulliallan team was directed to me on the recommendations of experts from other countries with whom I have worked and collaborated over the years since 2010. I wasn’t invited to have any involvement in the Evidence and Procedure Review process in this regard, which is also odd. I was, by then, one of the very few Scottish practitioners in relevant fields who really knew something about this area and could lay claim to having proper interest and relative expertise. So the team was directed by others from elsewhere to me and made contact.

I had an initial meeting with the team late in 2017. I explained that the gold standard for child interview protocols is the NICHD Protocol. I gave the team the names and contact details of experts to approach for assistance, including Michael Lamb (USA), David La Rooy (London), Carlos Peixoto (Porto), Trond Myklebust (Oslo), and Julia Korkman (Helsinki). These were all close collaborators of mine since my first attendance at the iIIRG in Stavern, Norway, in 2010. Of course, all of these experts referred the team back to me for assistance in the task they had been given. It was very odd indeed that the development and teaching of skills, methods, and approaches to JIIs in Scotland had been largely controlled and dominated by Martin Henry. Henry had and has no formal qualifications or indeed expertise in relation to forensic interviewing of children. Or anything else. Yet, he had successfully managed to keep those with genuine world-renowned expertise, such as David La Rooy, out of the development of skills in this area since before 2010. And to have their funding pulled. La Rooy had been based at Abertay University in Dundee until about 2016 and was readily available to help in Scotland. The quality of JIIs was generally regarded as deplorable under the quack training Henry had been allowed to peddle. La Rooy was committed to the NICHD Protocol approach. Henry seemed to have sufficient contacts in the Scottish Parliament, its quango-type “charities,” and Police Scotland to wield authority and keep genuine experts out. Very, very odd. More about Martin Henry’s lack of expertise and utter quackism later on. Lady Smith has relied on his views, apparently based on his unique “experience” in SCAI. You should read the transcript. Weird. Not an expert in any empirically demonstrable or objectively verifiable way. And with very questionable and concerning associations. To disgraced Cardinal O’Brien. And to James Rennie. Google them.

I thought that the JIIP team was not very interested in what I had to say at our initial meeting. They seemed a bit defensive. I suspected that they’d been directed away from the NICHD Protocol. However, I was genuinely pleasantly surprised when they did indeed get back to me, having contacted those experts that I had suggested. They told me that, when they looked in depth at what was available, the NICHD Protocol was really the only available evidence-based, demonstrably effective, structured interview technique that they could teach with any proper degree of intellectual and practical robustness. I was genuinely pleasantly surprised when they told me that the Scottish Child Interview Model that they intended to develop would be predicated on a Scottish version of the NICHD Protocol. Having said that, matters could have been sorted much more quickly if the authorities had simply allowed me to develop and organise the training.

Since those early meetings, I’ve helped the JIIP team develop the Scottish Child Interview Model. I’ve contributed to the development of various component parts of the teaching modules. I’ve written the chapter of the course for JII interviewers, which seeks to en-skill them for giving evidence in court about the model and its rationale. I’ve taught every single cohort of interviewers from the inception of the SCIM Model until January 2023. I’ve made this significant contribution to the development of evidence-based child forensic interviewing in Scotland, for the benefit of children and of justice, for no fee or cost at all. I’ve done this wholly pro bono and voluntarily.

I can honestly say that the interviewers who attend the JIIP course have often not really “got it” until my contribution as the last module of the course. I cannot think of a single participant who feels he or she has not “got it” after my teaching component. Ask them. They’ll tell you. The feedback from courts is also of vast improvement in the quality of evidence, which is presented in JIIs and by interviewers trained in the SCIM Model. Although it’s not entirely clear that the courts know what they’re supposed to be looking for.

In addition to my teaching of the NICHD Protocol to JII interviewers in Scotland, I’ve taught this material in other countries during the period since 2017. In July 2018, I was privileged to co-present one of the two Masterclasses at the iIIRG, the International Investigative Interview Research Group, conference in Porto. The subject was investigative interviews with children in court proceedings. The masterclass ran over two days. It was a big success.

A group of participants had travelled to Porto from Santiago, Chile, to attend the masterclass and conference. A team of lawyers, psychologists, and others met with me and told me about the implementation of a new law relating to investigative interviews with children and forensic questioning of children in court. The NICHD Protocol interview structure and technique was to be taught to all court questioners of children who would be trained as either interviewers or intermediaries. Importantly, both would be required to adopt the same NICHD questioning method and approach. Also importantly, and uniquely, judges were to be included as professionals who could be trained as intermediaries. This was a fantastic, dynamic idea as far as I was concerned.

Because I have a lot of judicial experience, gathered in almost every Sheriff Court in Scotland since my appointment as a part-time Sheriff in May 2010, I was asked by the Chilean contingent to travel to Santiago, Chile, and make a presentation to Chilean judges. I did this over two days in December 2018. I even managed to learn to present the seven-minute introduction in Spanish! You can watch it here¹. In my view, Chile is pioneering trauma-informed measures for child witnesses, which are world-leading. The rationale is to prevent secondary victimisation of children by participation in legal processes and by repeated, often inept, questioning. The two-day seminar was a huge success in Santiago. The Chilean judicial institute in Santiago, Instituto de Estudios Judiciales, continues to use the teaching tool I developed to teach judges who are NOT trained in the full NICHD Protocol approach. This is called the iBIC Judicial Matrix. It is available on Researchgate and is widely read each and every week throughout the Spanish-speaking world. You can see it here². There’s a version in English too.

Most recently, as I’ve told you, I’ve submitted a manuscript for publication on the subject of developmentally appropriate questioning of all children and adolescents (witnesses and accused). My manuscript contains a chapter on the Chilean system, which is written by two of my Chilean judicial collaborators.

Despite my best efforts, there has been no significant interest in the NICHD Protocol approach to developmentally appropriate questioning of children in courts and related forensic contexts in Scotland. This is to the detriment of children in Scotland, their interests and rights, and of justice itself. I did explain it and specifically suggested how it could be implemented in conversation with Lord Carloway at his “flagship” Vulnerable Witnesses Conference in June 2015. You can see how much note he took of my proposals. Maybe one day. Although, during the pandemic, the UK judges sneaked in a law change that means they can work until they’re 75. Imagine. No matter how important you think you are, no one is indispensable.

You can see what the focus of my activities has been during the period since I recovered from cancer and chemotherapy. My focus has been very firmly on measures and training which promote and assist the welfare and rights of children in courts and related forensic contexts. I suspect that these are some of the professional interests and activities that Lady Smith’s monstering of me is supposed to wipe out. Remember, DS Macleod’s sanction communicated to me on 23rd February 2023 when speaking to me as a witness in relation to my Note? “You’ll not be able to teach at the college anymore.”

Against that background, the monstering of me by Lady Smith is especially perverse, corrupt, and vindictive.

1https://www.dropbox.com/s/jarmbc4rm8uinw5/John.mp4?dl=0

2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333373118_Espanol__Protocolo_del_NICHD_Propuesta_para_Matrix_Judicial

No one’s above the law?

This chapter details my re-engagement with SCAI following upon my recovery from cancer. It explains my lawful basis, rationale and approach for re-engagement. It sets out an explanation of the work that I had been undertaking when I was told that I required urgent cancer surgery. The chapter provides a narrative of how and why my Note, dated 1st April 2019, was written. It also explains how the Note came to be reported to the Scottish prosecution authorities in Crown Office. This chapter highlights that there is endemic knowledge at the highest levels of the Scottish legal establishment about the matters addressed in the Note, namely the organised trafficking of children in care allegedly involving judges, lawyers and others. The apparent endemic and longstanding reluctance by the authorities to investigate is highlighted.

After my successful teaching trip to Chile in December 2018, I knew that in early 2019 I had decisions to make in relation to Lady Smith’s cruelty, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation of and towards me in 2016. I’d actively driven thoughts about this from my mind until I thought that I was well enough, and strong enough, to try to deal with it. I began to engage with it on a visit to Michael Lamb in a beautiful part of Maryland, USA, in October 2018. I found it useful to talk through the pros and cons of taking action with someone who had been there in 2016. As always, Michael offered wise, careful and cautious advice. Turning my mind to what had happened to me in 2016 was very painful and difficult. It’s hard to believe that such a senior figure could act like that and think she’d got away with it. I was determined that that Lady Smith wouldn’t get away with her unlawful behaviour to me if I could help it. Lady Smith would be held to account, somehow. Revisiting the trauma of late 2016 was so painful, however, that I had to seek help from my GP for anxiety and difficulty sleeping at nights.

From the beginning of 2019, I felt I was well enough to start to pick up what had to be done. The first thing was to deliver my summary of what I had been working on in late 2016 when I was authorised to work from home after my cancer diagnosis. I still hadn’t been paid for the work I’d done. The last word on that was recorded in the summary sent to me by Gordon Jackson following his meeting with Lady Smith on 7th December 2016. As Jackson told me, as far as Lady Smith was concerned, my appointment as counsel to SCAI hadn’t been terminated (if termination was competent); and I had to send a summary of the work I’d been doing so that my outstanding fee notes would be paid. But I had to recover first in order to be sufficiently resilient to deal with these snakes again.

I knew that I had to produce material to a reasonable standard so that Lady Smith wouldn’t be able to reject it as not having been done properly or as inadequate in some other way. The main problem for me was that I now had to write up the matters I’d been reading around and researching in mid to late 2016. I had to produce a summary. That was always going to be labour intensive. However, it had to be done. I was also able to rely on the fact that this was something agreed between Jackson and Lady Smith. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to assume that any further work done on the summary should be paid for by SCAI. I still held the appointment as counsel to SCAI.

There had been further correspondence between my clerks and Jamieson during my time on chemo and afterwards. For example, Jamieson’s email about this on 9th February 2017 detailed:

“Dear Andrew

I understand that you are dealing with this in Liz Manderson’s absence and have been in touch with our Business Manager, Elaine regarding the outstanding fees.

As was explained to ‎Liz, the fee notes will be paid when Lady Smith has evidence of the work undertaken to support the fees rendered. We realise, of course that John is unwell at the moment so do not wish to trouble him.

I hope that he is making good progress.

Regards

Julie-Anne”.

This is either a clear re-statement of the position as represented by Lady Smith to Jackson in December 2016. Or else it’s a cynical and calculated attempt to be maximally sneaky and to found on my illness while doing so. In other words, disability discrimination. Very nasty.

And so, I revisited many of the matters that I had had to put out of my mind in order to recover, to successfully complete my course of chemotherapy and to become fit and well enough thereafter to have a meaningful future. I’d taken time to regain fitness through prolific, if not very fast, cycling. It seemed to have done the trick so far. The hernia appeared to be under control because my fitness regime kept my weight down, and the possibility of further surgery for that was a frightening prospect that I had no intention of having to engage with ever again. I knew that I had to go back to work at some stage. In early 2019, I was 55. I was fortunate enough to have been sufficiently well-insured to be able to take time off work to allow me to completely recover. I am a self-employed Advocate and part-time Sheriff. I can’t really do any other work. I needed to go back to earning a living at some point, when able to do so. In theory, I still held an appointment as counsel to SCAI. However, I reasonably anticipated that Lady Smith and the groupthink wouldn’t be open to my further engagement with SCAI work.

By that stage, I also hadn’t quite figured out that it may have been me, and not Susan O’Brien herself, who had been identified by Sinclair, Henderson, Swinney, Lady Smith and the groupthink as the problem. The reason? Organised trafficking of vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in care must not be the subject of investigation by SCAI. Too much at stake for the system? The clue to the significance of this issue for them is the involvement of the Metropolitan Police operating in East Lothian in 1996. Hardie, and others. Who else? It’s the end-abusers that need to be identified. Who were the people who were sexually exploiting children and young people who were supposed to be looked after in the care system? Who were the people sexually abusing the little girls in their party dresses on respite at Fornethy? Who were the people who were said to have been able to take children out for the day from Queen Victoria School, Dunblane?

You see, there is an essential factual component in my employment history that presents an immediate problem for them: my employment as a Night Care Residential Social Worker on Friday and Saturday nights at St. Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh, between 1994 and 1996. The nature of the problem is NOT that that presents an irreconcilable conflict of interest which precluded me from working on any aspect of SCAI work ever, at all, as Lady Smith and the groupthink asserted. The nature of the problem is that one young man, Jamie Coltart, was a resident in the unit in which I worked during 1996. Although I didn’t know it at the time in 1996, Jamie Coltart was “involved” with at least two prominent lawyers: Andrew Hardie, QC, then Dean of Faculty; and Douglas Haggerty, Solicitor and Head of Legal Services at the Scottish Legal Aid Board, SLAB. So, unknown to me at the time of my application to become an intrant to the Faculty of Advocates in 1996, my employment experience, detailed on my CV, working at St. Katharine’s may have been identified as a problem for, or by, the then Dean of Faculty. Now isn’t that a sheer coincidence? A young man who was causing significant concerns in my workplace in relation to his own welfare, by putting himself at risk through sexual exploitation by older men for money, had some involvement with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates to which I was applying at the same time. And also with the head of legal services at SLAB, with which I experienced continual problems securing payment over my whole career as an Advocate. Odd that? The factual stuff is all detailed in the Note. But it’s important from my personal perspective to note that the Jamie Coltart case referred to was taking place while I was Devilling between October 1996 and being called to the Bar in July 1997. I was oblivious then.

During the weeks between January and the beginning of April 2019, I began to re-read and re-visit the materials that I would have written up if I hadn’t been ill and diagnosed with cancer in September and October 2016. My purpose in doing so was to provide SCAI with relevant, and what I considered to be important, material for investigation and determination. This related to issues concerning the organised sexual exploitation of children and young people in the care of the state by lawyers, judges and others. There is evidence of young people in the care system, in the early to mid-1990s and before, having been moved around the UK. For example, from Scotland to London. Active investigation by the Metropolitan Police of payment for relevant services from Hardie’s bank account. There is also evidence of “rent boys” from Edinburgh and Glasgow being flown, in groups organised by adults, for sexual exploitation through prostitution in London. This raises the possibility of organised trafficking of children and young people, including those in state care. If that is what was happening then, or ever, this is clearly an important chapter for investigation falling within the terms of reference of SCAI. The Met might even yet have relevant evidence available on the Holmes 2 Database. I’m not going to quote the TORs here. The relevant part is set out in my Note. You can also look at the SCAI website.

I took great care to set out my Note in objective, dispassionate, detail providing material for further investigation. I set about the task in the same way as I would write a judgement as a Sheriff. Taking care and time to do this in proper and sufficiently reasoned detail, I completed the task by the end of March 2019. I had spent a long time revisiting the detail of the materials for the Note. It also took me a long time to draft the Note, near enough from scratch. I spent more than four full working weeks on the whole exercise. In due course, I submitted an additional fee note for this work, for payment by SCAI at the rate specified in the Ministerial Determination in my favour. I fee’d for four weeks’ work, with my time restricted to 40 hours per week. I could therefore have fee’d for more, but I didn’t do that. The fee total amount for the Note was 4 x 40 = 160 hours @ £140 per hour. I didn’t know if junior counsel rates had been increased since 2016, although I suspect they had. The total of the principal sum fee’d therefore was £22,400.00.

I reasonably anticipated that Lady Smith would receive my approach with her usual hostility. So, I had to put a lot of time and effort into preparing my approach to her. Apart from providing Lady Smith with an unarguable piece of work, detailed in my “Note for SCAI” dated 1st April 2019, I prepared for my approach to her based on my understanding of the provisions in the Equality Act 2010. Although the detail of this code of legal rights was unfamiliar to me until then, it seemed to me to flatly demonstrate that Lady Smith’s cruel and overly assertive email reply to me on 21st October 2016 was hopelessly unlawful and amounted to disability discrimination. I was confident that, if I managed to point out to Lady Smith that she had acted unlawfully, she would immediately pay the outstanding fees from October 2016, with statutory interest to which I was entitled, and the new fees in relation to the Note.

How wrong I was. I had overlooked the fact that the law doesn’t appear to matter to Lady Smith. She has little regard for the law. In Lady Smith’s world, she is the law, and the law is what she decrees it to be. And she’s not the only Scottish judge to behave in this manner, as you’ll see. The rule of law amounts to what these people, in their self-conferred infinite wisdom, decide it should be rather than what the law actually says. And others fall into line. It’s quite worrying and almost beyond belief. But there are several examples of this, as you’ll see. It’s a type of abuse of power. When it becomes endemic, and all others either assist and/or simply fall into line, that can be regarded as one form of corruption, in my view.

Before approaching Lady Smith with my Note, I asked my clerks to confirm the situation in relation to my fees for work at home prior to surgery which had been outstanding since October 2016. Of course, you won’t be surprised to know that it’s unlawful to authorise a person to work at home when he has cancer and then refuse to pay for that work for a few years or longer. Aside from whether it’s lawful or not, most decent, compassionate human beings wouldn’t do it. Cancer is well-known to change a person’s financial landscape and outlook. When you can’t work, you don’t have income from work.

Jamieson replied to the clerks’ enquiry on 28th March 2019 in the following terms:

“Dear Louise

As outlined in my email of 27 February 2017, Lady Smith was only prepared to authorise payment of these fee notes based on evidence of the work done. Mr Halley was written to in October 2016 asking him to email Senior Counsel with the work he had done so far. We have not had a response, and the work was not provided; therefore, the Chair is not prepared to authorise payment.
I trust that this clarifies matters.

Kind regards
Julie-Anne.”

You’ll notice the change in tone from the 2017 communication. “Mr Halley was written to…” This is a reference to the email reply from Lady Smith on 21st October 2016 to my message telling her I was too unwell to meet with her. Hardly being “written to”. The “zero-hours contract” email. Anyway, this still appeared to pave the way for the submission of my Note and payment of my outstanding fees. Except, that still appeared to be dependent on Lady Smith.

At 10.01 on 1st April 2019, I dropped an email message straight into Lady Smith’s own email inbox. It was in the following terms:

“John Halley

Sent: 01 April 2019 10:01

To: anne.smith@childabuseinquiry.scot

Importance: High

Attachments: SCAI Summary – Child Traf~1.docx‎ (101 KB‎); feepdf 1.pdf‎ (255 KB‎); feepdf 2.pdf‎ (255 KB‎)

Dear Lady Smith

My last two fee notes for work on the SCAI remain unpaid. I attach copies. I understand from the Dean of Faculty that he agreed with you, on my behalf, that I should amplify the detail in relation to the work I had completed prior to my absence through illness. However, I understand from FSL’s subsequent discussions with the secretary that “evidence of the work done” is required. The two understandings appear different. I have completed a summary, though medically unfit to return to practice. This has taken me some time in the circumstances.

This situation has placed me at a considerable disadvantage because of my illness. On the one hand, you took the opportunity to direct that I should stop all work on the Inquiry from 21October 2016. On the other hand, (because you subsequently decided to withhold payment of my fees) in order to be paid for the work I had already done, I required to write up the material I had been working on in accordance with your instructions on 27 September 2016. I have had to wait until I am fit and well enough, not only to complete a summary of the work I have undertaken, but to engage with you in any circumstances at all, standing your conduct towards me since your appointment as Chair and to date in the full knowledge (at crucial times) that I was seriously ill.

In these circumstances, I attach a note summarising my work on the dates of the outstanding fee notes. I have also brought the material up to date. I am forwarding this message to the Dean and Vice Dean of Faculty in order to ensure that prompt payment is now made.

I look forward to receiving confirmation from you that my outstanding Inquiry fees will now be paid.

In addition, payment of statutory interest is due at 8% per annum over base rate on these fees. As you will be aware, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 applies (Andrew Lady Smith, QC, v SLAB 2013 SC 45).

I calculate the interest due at £731.01 + £997.64 = £1,728.65. I look forward to receiving confirmation that payment will be made, as appropriate.

You will appreciate that I have required to spend a considerable amount of time revisiting and writing this material up, and revising it into a reasonably coherent summary for others, if necessary, to work from. I have required to do this over many hours during a time when I continue to be absent from practice as unfit for medical reasons. I therefore intend (with the Dean’s permission) to submit fee notes in relation to this work. Standing what is written by you in your email message dated 21 October 2016, I shall be obliged if you will confirm that it is in order for me to submit fee notes for this further work and that they will be paid within the normal arrangements for payment of counsels’ fees by the SCAI.

On 7 December 2016, you informed the Dean of Faculty that my appointment as counsel to the Inquiry had not been terminated. Colin MacAulay has also communicated this to my clerks. I am considering what options are open to me in the event that I am well enough in the near future to return to some kind of normal practice. I will be grateful if you will please clarify the position.

At present, I am not yet fit to return to full practice. However, I am capable of working from home, with appropriate allowance, equipment, facilities and support, on work as Counsel to the SCAI. I shall be grateful if you will please let me know what, if any, arrangements you intend to put in place to enable me to work in that way. I would obviously welcome the opportunity to develop the chapter of work proposed in my attached note.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

John Halley.”

As far as I could see, this message ought to have been received in the spirit of the agreement between Lady Smith and Jackson on 7th October 2016. It was not. Predictably, Lady Smith reacted very badly indeed. The reply came on 25th April 2019. It was a half-baked attempt by Jamieson, communicating Lady Smith’s views that amounted to a complete re-writing of history. You can see the issues that arose as a result of its contents from my reply on 29th April 2019:

“Dear Julie-Anne

I have now had the opportunity to consider, to some extent but without advice, the contents and implications of your letter dated 25 April 2019. I disagree entirely with its analysis and conclusions. I deplore the innuendo in your expressed understanding of “apparent bias”. I will respond in more specific detail when I am able to do so either in letter or by action. Meantime, I hope you will share this message with Lady Smith.

At all material times since 1 September 2016 (and certainly since 10 October 2016), as Lady Smith is aware, I have had the protected characteristic of disability in terms of the Equality Act 2010 (section 6 and sched 1, part 1, para 6(1)). All cancer sufferers have this protection. Apart from statutory protections, a diagnosis of cancer is recognised by most normally compassionate human beings as traumatic for the victim. Lady Smith’s purported definition of my “limited” rights, her analysis and approach in her email to me dated 21 October 2016, all appear to be incorrect.

As Leading Junior Counsel to the SCAI, I have been, and remain, entitled to the protections afforded by section 48(6) and (7) of the 2010 Act.

Lady Smith’s conduct towards me throughout the course of my illness and to date, amounts to a cruel and unnecessary campaign of disability discrimination, harassment (including during my hospital admission for surgery and afterwards) and vicitmisation. The actings of other members of the senior Inquiry team, including yourself, towards me also appear to me to amount to disability discrimination, harassment and/or vicitmisation. This has genuinely surprised and distressed me given that all have been trained in trauma-informed approaches to victims of trauma. As you know, it is also in stark contrast with the kindness and compassion I was shown by my colleagues, including yourself, in February to March 2016 when I was absent from work suffering from pneumonia.

The contents of your letter dated 25 April 2019 have had a significant adverse effect on me. It has taken courage and determination to try to read it, and to return to it, time and again, in order to attempt to comprehend its harshness. As Lady Smith is already aware from my GP’s letter dated 19 October 2016, I have been suffering from severe anxiety as well as cancer and its effects, implications and uncertainties. My severe anxiety is caused by Lady Smith’s continuing conduct towards me.

It appears clear to me from your letter that Lady Smith’s disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation of and towards me continues to date. In these circumstances, I am driven to the view that I will have to make an application, if so advised, to the Employment Tribunal which appears to have exclusive jurisdiction to consider disability discrimination claims in terms of section 120(1)(a) of the 2010 Act. I am likely to seek compensation for my past and future losses of fee income. I am also likely to seek appropriate recommendation(s).

In the meantime, I have submitted a fee note in the normal manner in relation to the work that I have been required to carry out at a time when I am unwell. That work is summarised in my note dated 1 April 2019. I require to submit a fee note in order that the statutory interest period is preserved (see Andrew Smith, QC, v SLAB, 2013, SC 45). I attach a copy of my fee note for convenience. These are all protected acts, as referred to below.

As you are aware, the purpose of my note dated 1 April 2019 was to provide the written evidence which you advised was necessary in order that my outstanding fees would be paid. Those outstanding fees relate entirely to a period, following my cancer diagnosis, after which I had requested, and was authorised, to undertake work from home as a reasonable adjustment. That request was a protected act, as was submission of the fee notes. The work undertaken for my note dated 1 April 2019, and its completion, were protected acts.

My communications and interactions with Lady Smith and the SCAI (and with others), insofar as relevant, since 1 September 2016 are protected acts within the meaning of section 27(2) of the 2010 Act. This message is a further protected act, as is the submission of my fee note today.

Your letter dated 25 April 2019 continues the vicitmisation by Lady Smith that I have been suffering since 1 September 2016. I am entitled to protection from detriment(s) and from further victimisation in terms of section 27(1) of the 2010 Act.

I shall be obliged if you will now confirm that my outstanding fee notes, including that attached, will be paid immediately.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

John.”

Lady Smith made it clear that there was to be no payment of outstanding fees. Nor for the work I’d undertaken summarised in the Note. A derisory offer of part payment was made in relation to part of the Note. Lady Smith tried to assert that the content of the Note was not what I was “instructed” to do. Now that’s interesting. Does counsel to a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 only do work as “instructed” by the panel? The panel has a fact-finding and decision-making function. At least one part of counsel’s role is to independently advise and inform the panel in relation to relevant issues of fact and law. A public inquiry such as SCAI might also engage other counsel on a purely ad hoc or instructed basis. But that’s not the same as the role of counsel to an inquiry, with an appointment authorised, approved and subject to a Ministerial Determination specifying duties, remuneration and duration of appointment, until the end of the inquiry.

The essential point for this narrative is that Lady Smith was not prepared to do what she’d agreed with Dean of Faculty Jackson that she would do. Part of the reasons given for that related to my cancer, recovery process and ongoing unfitness for normal practice. This was disability discrimination. She was actually founding on my disability, deemed to be so because it’s a cancer diagnosis, and the consequences of it. Crass stupidity. I was correct in my tentative assumption that she hadn’t considered the Equality Act 2010 and its protections for cancer sufferers at all. Her idiotic and cruel email to me on 21st October 2016 almost said as much. Now she had confirmed it through Jamieson’s idiotic analysis. Why ask an over-confident, non-lawyer, armed with a misplaced confidence in the greatness and all-in superiority of her leader, to write a letter founded on points of law? Accusing me of being “apparently biased”. Idiotic. Amazing. The groupthink knows no bounds at all. So I raised an Employment Tribunal application against Lady Smith within the three month time limit after Jamieson’s letter on 25th July 2019. They had given me a relevant basis in law to revive the otherwise time-barred action. Just by doing what I anticipated they would do. Act unlawfully.

I honestly thought that someone would have the necessary clout and wisdom to rein Lady Smith in at this point. I was fairly sure, by then, that she couldn’t do that for herself. It seems to be to do with her concept of self – defined as the quintessential judge. In other words, it’s not about whether or not she’s correct in law. It’s about her greatness, as her designation specifies. Right and Honourable. Apparently not borne out by her actions.

I also thought that by raising an ET claim for disability discrimination against her, on these facts, she would be so embarrassed that she’d have to sort the situation out by compromise. This is something I’d have been willing to do, in principle. There were two issues, as you’ve seen. There was the disability discrimination, which was demonstrated in her cruel and horrible treatment of me when I was diagnosed with cancer and thereafter. The second issue, which really surprised me, was her absolute assertion that the Note, and its contents, were to be rejected by SCAI. I thought that was really concerning. In effect, she was saying they were not going to investigate the matters I’d flagged. This has been confirmed by her conduct and attitude since then. She even went as far as to say, and has now repeated on several occasions, that trafficking of children in care through prostitution does not fall within the SCAI’s terms of reference. A cursory glance at TOR 6 demonstrates that it clearly does and that any inquiry which adopted a contrary interpretation is obviously deficient and misguided. But what could the reasons be for that interpretation? Surely not just to counter me? It’s possible. But given the detail, and the names, in the Note, especially Hardie, she left herself open to obvious criticism that she was, in effect, covering up serious allegations about sexual misconduct with, and exploitation of, young people in the care system by a former Dean of Faculty, Lord Advocate and Senator of the Court of Session. Added to that, Hardie was still (and is still) conducting a ludicrously over-time, over-budget, public inquiry into the cost of the Edinburgh Trams project. And this remains the position at present, in July 2023.

But it’s not just me she’s closed down. I’ve been contacted by others. Applicants to the SCAI. People who have prepared themselves to give evidence about the sexual and other abuse that happened to them as children. Some have never spoken of it previously. I was contacted by a solicitor whose father was an applicant to the SCAI. She went with him to support him giving evidence. He was actively closed down and not permitted to talk about having been moved around as a child in care and trafficked. I was told this caused him great distress. The questioner’s purpose is to keep that material out of the SCAI evidence. Trauma-informed? So some survivors don’t actually get to tell the SCAI what happened to them in care when they were children? Another young woman told me she refused to sign the statement of her evidence produced by the SCAI. She felt the statement was intentionally trying to blame her for being a prostitute. Aged 13. She took exception to that. How can you be a prostitute aged 13? Since she wouldn’t sign, she couldn’t access the redress scheme. It’s a way of bullying and intimidating victims in order to fashion the narrative that’s required. By Lady Smith, SCAI and by the Scottish Government.

It seems to me that there is a reluctance to investigate the sexual and other abuse of children in care, and other environments in Scotland in a joined-up manner. The “bad-apple” theory prevails: each individual bad apple is eventually tracked down, where there is corroboration, and prosecuted. The system around him or her survives because no-one is really considering the wider network. This criticism obviously goes beyond the SCAI because it’s only concerned with children and young people in care environments. But why would a government restrict a national inquiry in this way? Can’t be to save money. Lady Smith has spent a fortune on SCAI so far, with no end in sight. The detail is beyond my scope here but you can have a look at the available statistics. If you even consider only that Macaulay has been coining it in at £270 per hour since September 2015 that gives a little modicum of perspective on the cost. But the bad-apple theory is dangerous. It’s Martin Henry’s approach.

My re-engagement with Lady Smith on 1st April 2019 took a lot of courage, as I hope you’ll understand. I knew then that it was career suicide. But I wasn’t prepared to be treated like that by a bully. Nor was I prepared to permit serious allegations of child sexual abuse to be covered up by refusal to investigate. I knew, before doing it, that I’d never be allowed to sit as a Sheriff again. I couldn’t see a lawful way to make that happen. But, as it turns out, that doesn’t matter to Lord Carloway, Lady Smith and others. Now that does cause me pain. I was a good and fair Sheriff. I think that most who appeared in my court would say so if you ask them. I sat in almost every Sheriff Court in Scotland between May 2010 and October 2016. I sat as a Sheriff a lot. I sat on about 460 or so sitting days over those years. I gained great experience and lots of it. I enjoyed it. I felt I was able to make some difference. I was proud of having a reputation for acting with fairness and courtesy.

The only time I was successfully appealed was in a summary criminal case from Paisley. In allowing the appeal by stated case in 2011, Lord Hardie essentially said that he believed the solicitor representing the appellant rather than me, the Sheriff, about what had been said in relation to the issue that the appeal turned upon. Hardie.

Even in late 2015, my judgement was upheld in the Inner House in a civil case about notice requirements in a rent review in a commercial lease. In West Dunbartonshire Council v William Thompson and Son (Dumbarton) Ltd [2015] CSIH 93, a Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session refused an appeal by the local authority against my judgement. The three-judge bench included one Lady Smith¹. This case is a useful illustration of the need to ensure rigorous application of the rule of law, albeit in circumstances far removed from the discussion in this text. The consequence of applying the law produced a peculiar result for which a local authority paid dearly. However, that is what the proper application of the law required. Although in a completely unrelated area of the law, this demonstrates an important principle which the rule of law requires. If the unfortunate results produced by application of the law are to be avoided, that requires a change in the law.

The very, very odd thing is this. I’m an experienced lawyer. I obviously was sufficiently able to decide, argue and manage criminal, civil and other kinds of cases properly. I’ve prosecuted murder and rape trials and all kinds of other criminal cases at the highest level and most serious crimes. From about 2003, I had an astonishingly high conviction rate as a prosecutor in rape cases. I have expertise in a difficult area of law, namely in relation to children in all contexts. I can evidence all of these claims. My legal colleagues know about these matters.

Yet, since April 2019, I’ve suddenly become someone who is unable to persuade any court, or tribunal, apparently, that there is any merit in the cases I’ve had to bring and arguments I’ve had to make. Worse than that. Anyone instructed to represent me has suddenly become wrong every single time. Aidan O’Neill KC. Aidan’s usually proved to be right, after all, once the cases he runs make it beyond Scotland. To the UKSC or Strasbourg. But when representing me, as you’ll see, he’s always wrong. Usually against Carloway, Lady Smith or the Scottish Government, or in relation to matters arising from their unlawful conduct. So, what does that tell you? That I’ve become a rubbish lawyer? And Aidan? I don’t think so. It raises concerns that the rule of law is not being properly applied. Such concerns are borne out by my experience in my attempts to challenge Lady Smith’s unlawful behaviour. The unavoidable conclusion, from my perspective, is that the rule of law is not being properly applied because Lady Smith’s, or related interests, are involved. But it seems to be two-dimensional. It’s borne upon and manipulated because of Lady Smith’s position, her status, her rightness and honourableness. Obviously, defective, spurious and plainly wrong legal arguments are run. Some successfully, others just for purposes of tactically filibustering a process. Usually, to set up an expenses argument to put me, who hasn’t worked since October 2016, under tactical and financial pressure. Cynical. All are publicly funded for Lady Smith. The second dimension is the othering process. By use of publicly funded media and unlawfully applied judicial and other disciplinary measures, my legitimate statutory and other rights are negatived, cancelled, and fall out of consideration. Or simply ignored. As if I’m not entitled to rely on them. At least against Lady Smith. Even though everyone else gets to rely on the same rights in other processes. Compare and contrast if the issue is sexuality or the like. They’re all over the Equality Act 2010. Thus, the othering process is completed. The second dimension. If that’s an accurate assessment, that is corruption at work. There are several examples which will be focused below.

And so, on 3rd May 2019, I went to see the Procurator Fiscal in Selkirk, 6 miles from my home. The PF was Graham Fraser. This is my local court where I sat as Sheriff on many occasions. This is the last court I sat in as Sheriff. That was on 28th October 2016, the last working day before I went in for cancer surgery on 31^st October 2016. I reported my Note for SCAI to him. I asked Graham to report the Note to Crown Office if he thought that course of action was warranted by its contents. He reported it immediately. Its contents have not been investigated since then, to my knowledge. Trafficking of children in care, investigated by the Met in 1996. Many at, and close to, the top of the legal establishment in Scotland were, and are, aware. None have reported it. Have a look at the roll of Crown Counsel in 1996-97 later on. Interesting names.

1https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=b68dfca6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Permission to give my name, Lady Smith?

This chapter details the steps I took to vindicate my rights following the abuse I suffered from Lady Smith when I had cancer. It describes what happened when I raised an Employment Tribunal case against Lady Smith in July 2019. It explains how the rule of lawyers usurped the rule of law. This account should be received as a warning by all litigants in Scotland who seek justice and vindication of their legal rights. This is an account of what can, and does, happen.

On 3rd May 2016, I also launched a Twitter account on the handle @AdvocateHalley. I didn’t really know anything about Twitter or how to go about achieving publicity through the use of social media. I didn’t know that you needed to have followers to make any impact on Twitter. I’d never been interested in any aspect of social media before. However, I did want to publicise a Public Statement in relation to what was happening to me. I wanted to lay bare in the public domain Lady Smith’s blatant disability discrimination and other unlawful behaviour. I also wanted to draw public attention to the fact that my Note was not being investigated by Lady Smith and SCAI. I wanted to make it clear that I considered this was sufficiently serious that I was prepared to report it to the appropriate authorities as potentially criminal conduct. I now know, after more than four years of silence, more othering, legal corruption and inactivity, that I was absolutely wasting my time, effort, energy and concern. The only person against whom any action has been taken is me. Framed, set up, false and utterly dishonest disciplinary and criminal actions against me. The othering process has matured on to monstering. With publicly funded media.

My Public Statement is still at the top of my Twitter feed as my pinned tweet. It states as follows:

“Public Statement by John Halley, Advocate and Part Time Sheriff in Scotland

The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (“SCAI”) Selkirk, 3 May 2019.

I have been absent from work since 28 October 2016. On 10 October 2016, I was diagnosed with bowel cancer. On 31 October 2016, I underwent a right hemicolectomy in surgery lasting some 4 hours at Borders General Hospital, Scotland. Between 6 December 2016 and June 2017, I underwent 8 cycles of chemotherapy. I have been unable to return to work since then.

Prior to and after my diagnosis of cancer, I have held appointment as Lead Junior Counsel to the SCAI.

On 1 April 2019, I submitted a detailed “Note”, running to in excess of 17,500 words, on Child Trafficking Through Prostitution of Children in Care in Scotland to Lady Smith, Chair of the SCAI. By letter dated 25 April 2019, Julie-Anne Jamieson, SCAI Secretary, informed me that Lady Smith has decided that the Note is comprised of material that I ought not to have been working on. I refute that entirely. I was instructed and I did investigate and report. The Note sets out a summary of my remit, important facts, allegations, inferences and sources for investigation by the SCAI. It is clear to me that Lady Smith has decided that the SCAI will not investigate the material detailed in the Note.

Since 1 September 2016, I have had to suffer disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation by Lady Smith. I will deal with that in an application to the Employment Tribunal when I am well enough.

However, I will not be complicit in, nor tolerate, cover up and failure to report or to investigate systemic failures, including prosecution policy failures, which appear to have perpetrated injustice on vulnerable young people in care in Scotland. I will not permit the serious allegations, detailed in my Note, of past child exploitation, and failures to report suspicions of child exploitation, by lawyers, judges, public figures and others, to be ignored.

I have today reported my Note to Mr Graham Fraser, Procurator Fiscal for the Scottish Borders Area. I understand that the Procurator Fiscal will report the Note and its content directly to the Lord Advocate if, having considered its content, he is satisfied of the duty to do so. I have felt compelled to immediately report the Note to the Procurator Fiscal in the public interest.

However this is spun the facts remain.

In order to ensure necessary safeguarding of our children going forward, Scotland and our survivors of child abuse require the truth.

This statement constitutes a protected act within the meaning of section 27(2) (c) and (d) of the Equality Act 2010.”

As far as I’m concerned, this was an important statement. Its substance received publicity in the Sunday Times. It also published the following comment by me:

“John Halley – Comment on Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, the Sunday Times 5.5.19

The manner in which children are safeguarded from harm and exploitation by the unscrupulous may be one way to measure progress in civilised society. The admirable political aspiration is for Scotland to be the safest country on the planet for children to grow up.

Children who have to live, love, learn, develop and grow in state care are especially vulnerable to exploitation. I have worked with and for disadvantaged children and young people at various times during almost my whole adult life. I know, from experience and knowledge gathered in residential units, children’s hearings, criminal and civil courts at all levels and from the bench that disadvantage for a child in care is often exploited to someone else’s perceived advantage.

Child sexual abuse and exploitation is properly to be described as endemic. Experience and research inform us that it happens whenever and wherever an abuser can. Abusers come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, jobs and professions. They appear to be good people and bad people, clever people and not so clever, rich people and poor people. They manipulate and deceive those around them for a particular purpose.

Child sexual abuse and exploitation is known to often cause lifelong trauma and suffering. It known to often affect life circumstances, education, prospects and health.

In any civilised society all people must have the protection of justice accessible and available to them. We must help the most vulnerable to access protections and justice. Especially children in state care.

With these vitally important considerations in mind, I welcome the statement by Crown Office concluding with the statement that understanding and acknowledging the deficiencies of the past, lessons can be learned for the future.

I was driven to make a public statement on 3 May 2019 in the public interest. I was driven to do so by communication to me informing that material and important apparent deficiencies identified by me in the prosecution of crime relating to vulnerable and exploited young people in care would not be investigated by the SCAI. The subject clearly falls within the SCAI terms of reference. There is a wealth of publicly available and relevant material. I continue to pose the question: why was this not identified as a chapter for priority investigation?”

But nothing happened. Essentially, Crown Office released a statement saying it expected to be investigated by SCAI. So what? The purpose in reporting the Note to Crown Office was for Crown Office to investigate whether any crime(s) may have been committed. They say now that there’s an ongoing investigation. That was supposed to include any criminal activity constituted by failing to investigate serious allegations of child sexual abuse. By anyone involved. The Faculty of Advocates. The Judiciary of Scotland. The SCAI. But nothing at all was done, it seems. Blind eyes were turned towards the issues. The “bad apple” analysis prevailed. And what about Jamie Coltart? An arrangement for him to plead guilty to something he didn’t do? That appears to amount to a perversion of the course of justice by all involved. Read the Note. But no investigation by Crown Office. Until, belatedly, in January 2023, the Solicitor General tells Parliament that she can’t answer questions about the Note because an investigation is ongoing. The truth? Or barefaced lies? To Parliament.

I was subsequently told by Mark Macaskill, Deputy Editor of the Sunday Times that the Crown Office statement which was published by his newspaper in early May 2019 was a re-run of a comment made when the SCAI was launched. I mean, talk about not taking the investigation of historical child sexual abuse seriously?

I was careful to make sure that all of my tweets and public comments in 2019 were either protected acts within the meaning of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, or otherwise protected by whistleblowing legislation. My statements and comments were clearly getting to Lady Smith, as they ought to have been. She also appeared to be embarrassed about being the respondent in an ET claim for disability discrimination. As she ought to have been. So, what would a reasonable person do? Look at the substance of the allegations and the applicable law and take a view? What did Lady Smith do? Lady Smith tried to assert herself as the judge rather than as the respondent in ET proceedings alleging disability discrimination. She acted as if the law didn’t apply to her. As if she’s above the law. This is the only way that it appears Lady Smith can operate. The groupthink supported her, of course. But she also got immediate support from even well-respected Scottish lawyers; as well as some who are not so well-respected, of course.

This is a manifestation of the rule of lawyers, rather than the rule of law. Corrupt lawyers who bend and twist the law to suit their purposes. Processes can be corrupted. Plainly and obviously wrong arguments can be run, without any real regard for the integrity of the law. The law exists to further Lady Smith’s aims and wishes. The law is not there for her to comply with. The necessary corollary of this deranged and corrupt mindset is that any rights in law which are sought to be asserted against her will necessarily be disregarded. By the othering process. Just sort of ignored and chipped away at. With lawyers paid from public funds. Corruption. No one is, or should be, above the law. And no one should be permitted to act as if the law doesn’t apply to them. No matter whom.

Just after I lodged my ET1 with the ET, I got a phone call on my house phone from Angela Grahame QC, the Vice Dean of Faculty. This was in about late July 2019. It was at about 10.45 am. I had had meetings with Angela and Gordon Jackson during May and June 2019. They were sympathetic and informally disparaging and candid in their comments about Lady Smith. Angela’s tone during the phone conversation was similarly supportive and disparaging of Lady Smith’s bullying and harassing behaviour towards me. Angela told me on the phone she had been contacted by Lady Smith. I did wonder, at the time, why the contact with Lady Smith always came through Angela. There was a reason for that which neither Angela nor Jackson told me about. I only found out years later when allegations about Jackson supposedly being overheard outside the SCAI hearing room by survivors talking inappropriately. Lady Smith had carpeted him apparently and rightly so if he had done that. Anyway, the point is, from my perspective, Jackson never told me that, as Dean of Faculty making representations on my behalf to Lady Smith, he was completely compromised. Angela never told me either. I now regard that as a serious breach of confidence. I had drafted a suggested letter to be sent to Lady Smith in May 2019 by Jackson as Dean. I was annoyed when the letter that was eventually sent was completely anodyne and apologetic in tone, as far as I was concerned. It was a pale image of what was required. Now I know why. Because Jackson was compromised as far as Lady Smith was concerned. Lady Smith was to be the judge of his behaviour.

Angela told me that Lady Smith had threatened to make a complaint about me to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. She was complaining that I was harassing her! I was harassing her? What a joke, except it’s not funny. This is an allegation that’s resurfaced again much more recently. When I’ve been trying to hold her account for the mass media monstering. This allegation provides some further insight, if any more is needed, into the mind of a bully. An abuser of a person when at his most vulnerable with cancer.

I said so what? I have statutory rights in terms of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 to make public comments and complaints about Lady Smith’s disability discrimination towards me. I told her that Lady Smith’s threat was just another example of unlawful victimisation, prohibited by the same section. I also agreed that I would stop tweeting about Lady Smith’s disability discrimination while the ET proceedings which I had just started were ongoing. We agreed that Angela would explain that to Lady Smith. That was it. I never heard any more about this, not a peep. I wasn’t copied into any correspondence about this matter, not ever.

Then, by Dean’s Direction dated 31st August 2022, pronounced by Lady Smith’s own counsel, Dunlop, I was accused of breaching an undertaking. Now, court lawyers are familiar with the concept of an undertaking. An undertaking is a promise or commitment given to a court to do, or not to do, clearly specified things. Every court lawyer knows that it is very important that any client, lawyer, or other person giving an undertaking to a court must be fully aware of the terms and requirements of the undertaking. Otherwise, if there was some gap or misunderstanding, the person giving the undertaking would potentially be in contempt of court. An undertaking is recorded in writing and signed by the undertaker. It is a bogus, hollow and desperate claim to try to assert, as Dunlop has, that I have given, or breached, any undertaking. This is a useful example of the sort of twisting and manipulation of the law and legal concepts I was categorising as corruption. Dunlop must find some basis to deflect from Lady Smith’s blatant, well -documented and indisputable disability discrimination. In order to do so, he must find a basis to accuse me of some wrongful and actionable act. As McBride used to say, “I can hear the bottom of a big barrel being scraped”. Dunlop was actually stupid enough to add to his Dean’s Direction “cc Lady Anne Lady Smith” at the bottom. As if Lady Smith actually has any status other than as SCAI panel. As at 31st Augst 2022, she was a retired judge. Importantly, for Lord Carloway apparently, she was beyond the disciplinary regime for judges. She was, again, the respondent in a second ET claim for disability discrimination and victimisation, brought by me, which I’ll tell you about in due course. The allegations on which the claim is based are unanswerable. So the attempt to discipline me on Lady Smith’s behalf has to be a rather pathetic act of corruption. This is a prime example of the rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law prevailing and being adhered to.

The original ET proceedings in 2019 ought to have been straightforward. But they weren’t. That twisting and manipulation of the law was at large then too. Corruption. My original ET case is detailed in a Paper Apart, attached to the ET1 Claim Form. I’ve added it as chapter here so you can read the detail. I’ve included both my Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019; and the ET1 in my first disability discrimination claim against Lady Smith. The BBC won the right to publish these documents. The BBC still hasn’t done so. That’s something of a mystery to me. It should also perhaps concern those interested in the way a publicly funded broadcasting corporation uses its public funding.

In the ET1, every allegation is supported by documented evidence. The protections provided by the Equality Act 2010 mean that, even if you’re unsuccessful, for whatever reason, in a disability, harassment or victimisation claim under the Act, you are still protected by the law when you insist that you were discriminated against. This is really important for people who have been discriminated against. It’s also really important because of the dysfunctional operation of the Employment Tribunal. My experience definitely demonstrates this. And I’m a lawyer who’s well used to being able to look after myself in court and tribunal environments. If I’m anywhere close to right in my assessment of the ET where does that leave the ordinary disabled person?

The ET is a creature of statute. It was devised to provide a forum for resolution of disputes between workers and their employers. There is almost always unequal bargaining positions in these sorts of disputes because employers, especially big companies and public authorities, can throw resources at any dispute, whereas the average worker can’t. So the ET’s rules provide for the tribunal having the power, and duty, to ensure fairness. However, in my experience, often the application and interpretation of the different parts of the Overriding Objective rule is applied in a manner, and with reasons, which pay lip service to the technical provisions of the rule, but produce a manifestly unfair result for the disadvantaged party. Usually me, in my limited experience of the ET.

Taking action against Lady Smith in the ET had its own additional complications. As well as being chair of SCAI and an Inner House judge in 2019, Lady Smith was also President of Tribunals in Scotland. The ET is an unusual structure within that because it has its own processes and procedures which necessarily bring it under the UK Employment Tribunals structure. So, it’s not quite as straightforward as being able to assert that Lady Smith had direct line management responsibility for the ET. But she definitely had some clout and presence. The ET has its own President in Scotland. At the time it was Shona Simon. I’m told on good authority a longstanding and close friend of Lady Smith. Lady Smith, after all, had been the Employment Appeal Tribunal judge (and there’s only one at any time in Scotland) for a period of time. The ET was therefore a game in which Lady Smith still had significant skin, so to speak, and I had to be very careful.

I’ve already told you about Lady Smith’s assertions about my “conflict of interest” which made me the only lawyer in Scotland who couldn’t work on any aspect of the SCAI’S work as at October 2016 when I had cancer. Despite the fact that, obviously, because of my background, skills and experience, I was the best placed and qualified lawyer in Scotland to do so. Have a look at her SCAI press releases, done by those 3 x 1 Group snakes.

Lady Smith obviously had a finely tuned awareness of the concept of conflict of interest. It’s a legal concept and might be associated in some very proximate instances with the concept of apparent bias, in situations where there is close proximity of interests for decision makers. Like if your Godson is representing the interests of insurers for several institutions accused of failures in your inquiry. You’d declare that conflict, right? No, not if you’re Lady Smith. So, in the ET structural considerations a top legal brain like Lady Smith would identify that her position as President of Tribunals in Scotland created a conflict, or possibly even issues of apparent bias, for proceedings in the ET? Unfortunately, she’d been sued on detailed disability discrimination allegations supported by lots of evidence. What does the top lawyer do to preserve the demonstrable integrity of the rule of law? Nothing. Lady Smith does nothing. Brazen it out and insist on your rightness and honourableness. Unconcerned about the integrity of the law or of the tribunals’ structure. All of that is secondary to her positions as President, Judge and Panel. Of course, it runs the clear risk that I cannot receive a fair hearing. But worse, from the ET’s perspective, I cannot be seen to have received a fair hearing in the circumstances. Conflicts like this make Scotland’s justice system appear compromised. A sort of small-scale sham. There are similar, and worse, issues and examples of conflict and proximity to follow.

These issues were raised with ET President Simon. But she batted them away with procedural skill and knowledge in a written judgement. I had arranged insurance cover for this first ET claim under legal expenses cover I had in place. Big mistake. I wanted my Devilmaster, Andrew Smith KC, to represent me. A fearless Advocate, I knew Andrew hated bullies and wouldn’t take any nonsense from Lady Smith. If I could get his interest and commitment. But I couldn’t. He didn’t practise in the ET. Andrew arranged for a junior counsel whom he rated, David Hay, Advocate, to represent me. David clearly knows his employment and discrimination law. He clearly has knowledge and experience in the ET and its procedures and practices. However, fatally, David was insufficiently experienced and was capable of being pushed around, bullied if you like, by the bench in some circumstances. I saw this. Others have too. I don’t want you to think I’m necessarily being critical of David Hay here. He’s a nice bloke and a good lawyer. He has a right to be treated with professional respect. But judges can be difficult. It takes knowledge, experience, confidence, personality and several other qualities to be able to fearlessly represent your client’s interests in the face of bullying from the bench. A litigant can lose, or be fundamentally or fatally compromised, in a case just because of bullying from the bench. And bullying from the bench can happen in many different ways. It’s very worrying to witness this from the litigant’s perspective. It’s essential that all litigants see that their cases, interests and lives are being dealt with fairly.

My 2019 ET case was allocated to a relatively newly appointed ET judge, at least in Scotland, Mark Whitcombe. An English Barrister, ET President Simon saw the allocation of the case to him as the way round issues of conflict of interest and apparent bias because of Lady Smith’s position as President of Tribunals. You’ll anticipate that I think this misses the point. The principal difficulty with the President of Tribunals being sued in the ET in Scotland is not that the ET judge allocated the case might know her. The principal difficulty is a structural one. It requires resignation, or at least temporary stepping aside, of the President in question, i.e. Lady Smith. But it just didn’t happen. Not on the agenda at all. And the system went along with Lady Smith’s assertive behaviour on this. Any person holding judicial office, inquiry panel and presidential appointment, should be embarrassed to be sued in relation to such extreme, cruel and wholly unacceptable behaviour towards any person in the workplace who has been diagnosed with cancer and requires urgent surgery. Not Lady Smith. The law, its structures and its integrity all have to yield to Lady Smith’s greatness. The rule of lawyers.

But Lady Smith was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable at being the subject of protected acts and disclosures by me complaining of discrimination. This much was obvious from her leaning on Angela Grahame. Lady Smith appears to have a fundamental need to be the judge in such situations. But her she wasn’t the judge. She was the respondent, the defender. And she couldn’t do anything about that. Had the work context been a court action, of course, she would have been a judge and couldn’t be sued.

Of course, if acting properly, she should have apologised for her unlawful behaviour and resigned as SCAI panel, President of Tribunals and possibly as a Senator of the Court of Session. Because of such concerning behaviour that her ability to exercise even a normal, acceptable, degree of human judgement had been so seriously called into question. By her cruel behaviour towards someone who was at his most vulnerable and suffering from cancer.

Not Lady Smith. So how do you think she played it? What did she do? She asserted herself as the judge, of course. To be obeyed by the Employment Tribunal. Absolutely astonishing. Blatantly unlawful. Self-evidently absurd. But it’s okay. Dunlop thought it was an arguable legal position, apparently. This was the President of Tribunals in Scotland seeking to compromise the statutory jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal itself. And guess what? No one batted an eyelid. Corruption at work. Blatant, in your face and unapologetic. Lady Smith “pronounced” a series of obviously unlawful and incompetent restriction orders. In order to do that, she had to use the powers conferred on her as SCAI panel. Those powers can only competently be used in relation to matters falling within the inquiry’s terms of reference. Unlawful disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation obviously do not fall within terms of reference which might be summarised as relating to the investigation of historical child abuse.

I actually laughed when I was told by my solicitor, that Lady Smith had made the first restriction order in relation to my ET claim against her. Lady Smith is the respondent, the defender. Yet Lady Smith asserts that she has the power to stop anyone and everyone from publicising any aspect of what is alleged against her without her prior consent. You’ll no doubt have heard of the fundamental legal principle that no one can be the judge in their own cause? The product of extreme groupthink, delusion and corruption. The blatant abuse of statutory powers entrusted to Lady Smith for the purpose of investigating child abuse in Scotland. The rule of lawyers, not the rule of law. Supported by that well-known rule of law supporter, the Dean of Faculty, Roderick William Dunlop KC. Presented as if it’s a statable argument. Lawyers who are prepared to break the law and then, when rumbled, protest loudly that it was an honest mistake, and you can’t prove that it was done in bad faith. No respect for the law itself. The law is an instrument to be manipulated and misused, even corruptly, to further your own personal interests. Scotland in the 21st century. A judge, too.

There’s another aspect to this corrupt conduct by Lady Smith and the groupthink that requires consideration. Public money was used. And when Lady Smith’s obviously unlawful orders were challenged by the BBC, greater sums of public money were used. The BBC is also publicly funded. Who benefitted? Only the lawyers involved. Dunlop. And Lady Smith. When the BBC were eventually successful, years later, in their challenge on appeal, they didn’t go ahead and publish the material they had won the right to publish. Why not? This remains a matter of significant concern, in the public interest. And the survivors of historical child abuse didn’t benefit to any extent or in any way whatsoever. Shame on Lady Smith and the groupthink. But public funds, the power to control them, especially in litigation, money, is power.

Once Lady Smith had made these unlawful restriction orders they could only be challenged by judicial review. I could not fund, and risk funding, an application for judicial review in 2019. I hadn’t worked since 2016. I hadn’t earned any income. A fact well known to Lady Smith and the groupthink. So, from Lady Smith’s perspective, there’s mileage in making corrupt orders. They stand until successfully challenged, whether unlawful or not. Brazen. It’s the law that pays the price. And, indirectly, the survivors of historical child abuse who are supposed to benefit from the SCAI’s work. And funding.

There’s another little relevant digression here. When Susan O’Brien was being set up, othered and then monstered by Summers & co, I was present when Macaulay and Peoples approached Susan in her office. Their approach was quasi-official. Sneaking in like Cromwell & co setting up Thomas More. Their purpose was to advise Susan, as senior counsel to the inquiry, that she wouldn’t be able to use SCAI resources to defend any proceedings to remove her; or to commence proceedings to protect her position. This was their considered “legal” advice. To Susan. Who had fought to ensure Peoples received not just a Ministerial Determination in his favour but a better hourly rate. I don’t think they tendered the same legal advice to Lady Smith. Do you?

A preliminary hearing was held in Edinburgh on 27th September 2019 before ET Judge Whitcombe. He produced a detailed Note dated 29th September 2019. Brian Napier QC was instructed as counsel for Lady Smith. Sadly, Napier simply fell into line with Lady Smith’s instructions. Napier tarnished his professional credentials indelibly by submitting that the ET was bound by Lady Smith’s unlawful restriction orders. This is what Whitcombe’s Note recorded:

“The procedural implications of restriction orders

3. It is important to record the respondent’s position regarding the effect of the restriction orders she has issued under section 19(2) (b) of the Inquiries Act 2005. This is something I had also attempted to explore in correspondence dated 16 September 2019.

4. Mr Napier confirmed today that the respondent’s view is that the restriction order also binds independent judicial bodies, such as this tribunal. It is worth reflecting on the implications of that stance. If the respondent’s view is correct then the restriction order would constrain any court or tribunal of any level whatsoever, subject only to:

a. a specific grant of permission by the respondent; or

b. judicial review of the restriction order itself or of a refusal by the respondent to grant permission to disclose documents falling within its scope.

5. I asked Mr Napier whether, in the respondent’s view, it made any difference if the restriction order purported to restrict activities which were mandated by legislation or otherwise necessary to ensure access to justice. Examples would include copying a response to the claimant and to ACAS, attaching a copy of an ET judgment and written reasons to a notice of appeal to the EAT, or uploading an ET judgment and written reasons to the online public register.

6. The respondent’s position is that the restriction order would apply in those circumstances too, such that the respondent’s permission would be necessary in order for the claimant to be able to send a copy of an ET’s written reasons to the EAT, or for the ET administration to perform certain functions which are mandatory under Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. As I understand it, the respondent also contends that the Lord Chancellor’s obligation to maintain a public register of judgments and written reasons is subject to the restriction order in this case, and therefore to the requirement for her permission before the ET’s judgment and reasons could be uploaded. Underpinning this stance is the view that documents sent to the respondent by the ET, the claimant or even her own legal team are documents “given, produced or provided to the Inquiry” for the purposes of s.19(1)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005.

7. It is not for me to become involved in any general questions regarding the scope and validity of the restriction orders made by the respondent. If anyone wishes to challenge them then that will take place in another forum. My concern is limited to the obvious potential for conflict between the terms of the restriction orders and the Employment Tribunal’s own powers, duties and functions. The respondent is suggesting that an independent judicial body can only perform certain of its functions with her permission. Since, so far, the respondent has granted permission for each of the disclosures necessary under the ET Rules of Procedure it has not been necessary for me to decide whether the arguments outlined above are correct and whether her permission is required. It might become necessary to do so in the future.”

The embarrassment and implicit insanity in Napier’s submissions are compounded when you understand that Whitcombe also discussed the following scenario with Napier. Whitcombe pointed out to Napier that the effect of the restriction orders at that stage meant that I would have had to ask Lady Smith for permission to discuss my cancer with my GP, surgeon or specialists in order to not be in breach. He pointed out that I would breach the orders every time I gave my name and address. Whitcombe asked Napier whether he agreed that that was a fundamental problem in a disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation claim. Astonishingly, Napier stuck to the line that the restriction orders had to be complied with. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so corrupt and serious. This is the abuse of power in action.

After further procedure, David Hay allowed himself to be boxed in on an argument about the direct effect of EU law and whether Lady Smith was immune from suit in relation to disability discrimination allegations in terms of section 37 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Napier then produced a case that confounded this approach in theory. Hay was too scared to ask Whitcombe’s permission to amend the pleadings to simply revert to the straightforward domestic application of section 48 of the Equality Act 2010, which specifically applies to Advocates. At the next preliminary hearing in December 2019, Hay raised an issue asking to change the pleadings fairly minimally. With the BBC and other media having been given permission to be present, Whitcombe, sharp as a tack, immediately pounced onto the offensive with a comment to effect, “That raises the issue of expenses…”

The ET is an attractive forum in which to raise a dispute precisely because, generally, there should be no awards of expenses unless the conduct of the party against whom the award is made has been questionable in some way. It’s obvious that if Napier was to move for expenses on Lady Smith’s behalf, then that could have amounted to a lot of money. After all, Lady Smith had been unlawfully using public funds. Using the solicitors to SCAI to act on her behalf. Paying for Napier and, no doubt, others to help her tell lies to the ET. Whitcombe’s expenses bombshell appeared to me to be a calculated threat. I was there. I saw it happen. Get lost, or I’ll whack you with a finding of expenses. This is a tactic often used by judges in many courts and tribunals, especially where the issues or value of the case are of minimal importance. But it shouldn’t happen in the ET unless there has been questionable conduct. And it shouldn’t be raised as a possible course of action by the judge in such a sensitive and important disability discrimination claim. Of course, Napier’s dim yellowy ears pricked up immediately. During an adjournment, I discussed it with Hay and my solicitor. My son was with me too. He has a law degree, but would never, ever be attracted to work in the corrupt system he’s seen me battle with for years. His take was that you could smell the fear off Hay. I had to abandon the case with an agreement that there would be no expenses. I was gutted. Shafted by Whitcombe. Lady Smith issued press releases through her 3 x 1 Group snakes and proclaimed her own rightness and honourableness. She was off the hook. For now.

So that no one was in any doubt about my position, I gave a quote to Graham Grant of the Daily Mail on 12th December 2019 in response to Lady Smith’s press release. It read:

“Lady Smith discriminated against me, harassed and victimised me when I was diagnosed with cancer, undergoing surgery, during chemotherapy and thereafter to date. Her lack of compassion calls into question her ability to exercise balanced and compassionate judgment in relation to cancer sufferers in the workplace, in my experience.”

I thought that about summed it up. It was also a protected act.

However, the following Monday evening, 16th December 2019, after business hours, I received an email from the Judicial Office for Scotland informing me that a Tribunal was to be convened to consider my judicial “misbehaviour”. I had complained publicly about Lady Smith’s disability discrimination towards me while I had cancer, comments that were protected acts. Apparently, Lady Smith’s allowed to do what she did to me without any need for investigation. I’m not allowed to exercise my statutory rights by making protected statements complaining about it. The othering process is complete. For some nebulous, unclear reasons, I don’t have rights to rely on, despite what the law says. And now they embark on the monstering process. Their farcical Tribunal is still ongoing.

Pursuing truth for the licence fee payer…

This chapter charts and explains what happened when the BBC decided to challenge Lady Smith’s very obviously unlawful restriction orders. Remember ET Judge Whitcombe’s questions of Brian Napier KC in Chapter 12? I obviously had an interest to be represented in this case. Didn’t I?

The BBC won the right to publish my Note, dated 1^st April 2019, as well as the details set out in my 2019 Employment Tribunal claim for disability discrimination against Lady Smith. The chapter highlights that, although the BBC won on appeal, the Note and the ET claim details were never published. I ask the question why? The chapter goes on to anticipate the consequences for me and for the continuing and urgent need for fearless and thorough investigation of organised child sexual abuse and child trafficking allegations in Scotland.

This chapter also raises other vitally important issues in relation to the rule of lawyers, as opposed to the rule of law. It describes court procedures which featured manipulation of the law in order to conveniently cover up serious issues about allegations of organised child sexual abuse and trafficking of children in care. This case was allocated to Lord Boyd of Duncansby at first instance. Lord Boyd is a close and longstanding associate of Lord Hardie, the subject of part of the Note. Lord Boyd should not have heard this case. Nor should the Lord President. Lord Carloway, on appeal. Nor should Lord Pentland, Paul Cullen, QC. All knew about the Note or important details in it. This chapter describes what can happen in the Scottish legal system, at the highest levels, to make proceedings appear to be in order. What was actually happening was corruption in action.

Lady Smith was absolutely determined that no one should be able to publish the hideous detail of my 2019 disability discrimination claim against her. She knew that the BBC had the detail of my ET claim against her, including copies of the supporting documentation. Every word in the claim could be proved by reference to available documentation which is still available. Lady Smith also knew that I’d had various discussions with the BBC Scotland journalist Andrew Picken, among others. Just after I began my ET case against Lady Smith in July 2019, I’d recorded an interview, on the banks of the Tweed at Peebles, with the BBC correspondent who covers the Scottish Borders, Cameron Buttle. The BBC then appeared to be really interested in the aspect relating to Lady Smith’s sheer, brazen viciousness and lack of ability to act as a normal, compassionate human being towards me when I was diagnosed with, and suffering from, cancer.

Lady Smith’s unlawful restriction orders remained in force, however, until they could be declared to be unlawful by a court with necessary jurisdiction. And she reminded the world that she was to be obeyed in SCAI press releases issued through the lowlife 3 x 1 Media Group. This is simply and straightforwardly an example of fairly blatant corruption and abuse of statutorily conferred powers which were being used for purposes other than that for which they were given, i.e. the investigation of historical child abuse. In fact, Lady Smith was using those statutory powers to prevent me from telling to the world what happened to me; and that she was refusing to investigate serious allegations relating to the organised sexual abuse and exploitation, through trafficking and prostitution, of children in the care of the state in Scotland. Was it to cover up for those identified in the Note? Or was it just that the sexual and other abuse of children in state care didn’t matter as much as the horrendous abuse meted out to children in private schools? The latter aspect appears to have become SCAI’s primary focus by late 2022-23, at least in the media. This is at least partly as a result of Lady Smith’s ill-conceived attempts to assert her authority with a group of eloquent survivors of abuse at Edinburgh Academy and Fettes.

After I’d had to abandon my first ET claim against Lady Smith at the end of 2019, I was very much interested in the possibility that was discussed with me by Picken about the BBC challenging Lady Smith’s restriction orders by an application for judicial review. I couldn’t afford to do this. And, although I’d recovered from cancer, the whole process of taking Lady Smith on in 2019 was fairly traumatic. I continued to be absent from practice, on an exempted absence granted by Jackson as Dean of Faculty at the start of November 2016. Also, I hadn’t earned any income since 28^th October 2016, when I did my farewell sitting as Sheriff at Selkirk Sheriff Court. In addition, The Lord President, Carloway, was now breathing down my neck with an unlawful Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal. It’s still ongoing now. Disciplining me for telling the truth about Lady Smith’s corrupt conduct. A kangaroo court if ever there was. I felt under pressure. In retrospect, this process definitely appeared to be the start of the monstering process. The othering process may have really ended when I was unable to access the rights that everyone else is entitled to by law. Not only that. But Lady Smith was at liberty to proclaim her exculpation to the world at large. Which she did. You should have a look. The popular conclusion would inevitably be that I’d done something wrong, which wasn’t true; and/or that I’d wrongly accused Lady Smith of doing something wrong, which wasn’t true. The truth was that Lady Smith had acted unlawfully and abused the statutory powers given to the panel of the SCAI for the purposes of investigating historical child abuse in care contexts.

So I was very interested in the BBC doing the decent thing, as I saw it, by challenging Lady Smith’s restriction orders. The BBC was a sufficiently powerful and well-funded organisation to be able to do that. It would be good for them to show that they wouldn’t be pushed around by Lady Smith. Also, the implicit attraction for me was that the BBC would finally be able to publish the details of my 2019 ET claim. I’d also had extensive discussions with Picken about the Note for SCAI dated 1^st April 2019. Picken, and many, many other Scottish and UK journalists, had seen and read it. All were interested in its contents. Picken always struck me as a quiet, reserved, intelligent and considered bloke. Careful and cautious. There’s no doubt at all that he knew the difference between the ET claim details and the Note. At all times and in all discussions I had with him. Over a period of years. I discussed various aspects of the Note with Picken over the years between May 2019 and summer 2022. There was no scope for confusion. Not in 2019. Nor in 2020 when the BBC raised proceedings against Lady Smith. Nor in April 2021 when the BBC lost before Lord Boyd at first instance. Nor on and after 23^rd February 2022 when the appeal was determined in the BBC’s favour quashing Lady Smith’s restriction orders and declaring them to be unlawful. Clearing the way for the BBC to publish the details that they’d won the right to publish. The 2019 ET claim details and the Note. Except the BBC never did. Why?

The Note for SCAI dated 1^st April 2019 hadn’t actually been part of the 2019 ET papers. It was referred to in the pleadings but hadn’t actually been produced. However, on the face of the restriction orders, it was caught. This, effectively, prevented me, Picken or anyone else from talking about the Note in public. You’d never know until you actually did it. Of course, Lady Smith would have been delighted to be able to make a referral from SCAI for a finding of contempt in relation to a breach of one of the three restriction orders. Can you imagine the groupthink?

The first hearing of the BBC’s application for judicial review took place during lockdown. The world had changed and priorities had had to be re-ordered. I spoke to Picken by phone after the hearing. He had been present. The first hearing took place in open court. Anyway, Picken and I discussed before and after the first hearing the allocation of the case to Lord Boyd of Duncansby. I remember feeling deeply disturbed, almost alarmed, when I heard this. Colin Boyd is the closest, longstanding, publicly recognisable, friend, political associate and ally, of Hardie. Hardie’s successor as Lord Advocate too¹. Google them. For the system to be so brazen as to permit this judicial review to be heard by Lord Boyd was very deeply disturbing to me. The “right” judge. Yet again. Everyone knows Lord Boyd is close to Hardie. It’s one of those great open secrets in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Lord Boyd was Solicitor General for Scotland when Hardie was appointed Lord Advocate by Tony Blair’s New Labour government in May 1997. Given that the Jamie Coltart case was in court in February 1997, it was like handing to the Big Bad Wolf not only the keys to Grandma’s house, but also to the cupboards and safe too. Anyway, Lord Boyd didn’t recuse from hearing the BBC’s application for judicial review. He wasn’t even asked to recuse by either party. Astonishing, to my mind at least. The BBC was represented by Kenny McBrearty QC. Lady Smith was represented by Roddy Dunlop QC, by then Dean of Faculty. Dunlop.

Dunlop was elected Dean in July 2020, after various public and embarrassing shenanigans, reported in the media, concerning Jackson. Dunlop was the only candidate who stood. Dunlop’s election as Dean marked a sea change in the Faculty’s attitude to me. Jackson had attempted to be supportive, in a sort of sheepish way, in the face of Lady Smith’s all-conquering magnificence. He had met with her on my behalf on 7^th December 2016, when I was ill. I really appreciated that. Dunlop was a different entity entirely. Destined and anointed before time began to the office of Dean of Faculty. Have a look at this: Hey Legal Quiz Episode 4². We share the same Devilmaster, Andrew Smith KC. Dunlop is also in everything. I mean either instructed in many, maybe even most, of the important cases and inquiries that are determined in Scotland. Or, as Dean, involved in discussions about every aspect relative to the Scottish legal establishment and beyond. Articulating Lady Smith’s abuse of powers in a manner that suggests what she’s been up to is perfectly legal and entirely correct and reasonable. By so doing oiling the wheels of corruption. Usually expressed with trappings like “Lest you think that blah blah blah…” using obscure words like “cavil”; and misappropriated, dodgy, Latin. “Ad feminem”. Typical Advocate, with whistles and bells. And all over Twitter. He’s coming at you.

When I spoke to Picken in the days following the first hearing, he explained to me that my Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019, had been referred to in open court. This confirmed in my mind the blatant, open secret, nature and extent of corruption in Scotland. In the Court of Session. Absolutely shocking. The Note contained details relating to Hardie and the need for investigation into his sexual conduct towards children. Yet this petition was to be determined by one of Hardie’s closest known professional associates. Surely a legal system, no matter how small by population, must be guaranteed to have sufficient structural integrity to ensure that a situation like this is not permitted to occur? The alternative to structural guarantee is reliance on personal integrity. By its nature, that model is only as effective as individual standards. Those are borne upon by personal interests, relationships, such as here, and much more. The principle of apparent bias explained in ex parte Pinochet. Anyway, just ignored here, in the usual way, as if there was no question of it being relevant. It’s a tried and tested modus that’s been used at all times in relation to the Note. Never, ever, even referred to. It’s existence never acknowledged in any proceedings. A whole legal system in denial. Or covering something up? The Met operating and pursuing an investigation in East Lothian in 1996? Trafficking of young people for sexual exploitation?

The BBC news item reporting Lord Boyd’s judgement can be found at³. If you can manage it, Lord Boyd’s judgment itself can be read at⁴. You’ll note that I was not a party to this action and my interests were not represented in any way. This is a matter of great importance to me. Would the reasonable person be content to have their personal medical history and details discussed in public forum in a court action between two public authorities, and heard before a third public authority, namely the court? Lodged in court as part of an agreed joint bundle of productions? I think not. The ultimate othering, in important respects. My cancer was discussed. By the “Dean of Faculty”. In other words, in open court, and by an official with a public function and particular duties owed to me in relation to my welfare. There’s much in Lord Boyd’s judgement that I’d take exception to, and that is, frankly, untrue. But my interests weren’t represented. Be in no doubt at all. This is a snapshot of corruption at work.

To take just one example, the ET proceedings brought by me in 2019 were not raised against Lady Smith as chair of SCAI, as stated by Lord Boyd. Napier, on Lady Smith’s behalf, actually asked, and was allowed by ET judge Whitcombe, to have this amended. Into my claim! Unheard of. Corrupt. As a matter of law, a claim under the Equality Act 2010 can only be brought against an individual, a “person” in law. Lady Smith is a person in law. Lady Smith, as chair of SCAI, is not a distinct person in law. Also, in Lord Boyd’s judgement, “the parties,” i.e. not me, were agreed that the sensitive material shouldn’t be in the public domain. It’s not clear what sensitive material is being referred to. Is it my cancer? Or Lady Smith’s blatant uncompassionate bullying behaviour? Or, perhaps more likely, is it the detail in the Note? About Lord Boyd’s mentor. Corruption at work. And all dressed up in the language of protecting survivors of child sexual abuse. Lord Boyd even accepts Dunlop’s invitation to found on the “opinion” of a psychologist. What a joke. She works for SCAI. Anne McKenchnie is not independent of SCAI:

Lord Boyd attempted to shore up his judgement by hiding behind the trauma caused to victims of child sexual abuse. It’s repugnant. Lord Boyd’s judgement is an excellent example of just how systemic child sexual abuse is covered up by the legal system in Scotland.

Lord Boyd’s judgement is also significant for this reason. This presents a picture of exactly how Dunlop operates to spin in favour of Lady Smith; to twist the blatantly unlawful into something statable, acceptable; and to cover up self-evident disability discrimination perpetrated on a member of the Faculty of Advocates when he was at his weakest and most vulnerable, with cancer. Dunlop has continued to do this on Lady Smith’s behalf, formally in court; formally out of court by abusing his own disciplinary powers; and informally, out of court, by keeping those wheels of corruption well-oiled and in operation in meetings, collaborations and on social media. So much so that I’ve raised ET proceedings against Dunlop. The first Advocate to have sued the Dean, I believe. I understand he’s quite sensitive about that. What an utter disgrace. His response? The Equality Act 2010 doesn’t prevent Dunlop from victimising members of Faculty.

Lord Boyd’s judgement is also an excellent summary of the completed othering of me. If you read it, it reads as if I have no rights to assert nor any interest to protect in the proceedings. In relation to my cancer which is automatically classified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010; and to Lady Smith’s blatant and unapologetic, ignorant, and cruel disability discrimination towards me. Othering. Reading Lord Boyd’s judgement, you’d be thinking to yourself, what’s Halley complaining about? He’s so unreasonable. And disregards the interests of the survivors of child sexual abuse. He must be wrong. No right-thinking person would agree with Halley = othering complete.

The BBC appealed against Lord Boyd’s judgement. Successfully. Now, you might be saying to yourself, good, that demonstrates integrity in the legal system in Scotland. Not so. You’d be wrong. It requires special skills to allow an appeal and preserve the underlying corruption. Very deceptive. It makes the impartial observer think everything’s ok and the system must be working well. All shrouded in the obscure language of “the law”. That’s another layer of protection for the cover-up. The appeal judgement takes the othering of Halley to a new and elevated level.

The appeal judgement was delivered by the Lord President, Lord Carloway, on 23rd February 2022. He heard the BBC’s appeal together with Lords Pentland and Woolman. The BBC’s news item is at⁵. The judgement can be found at⁶. The first news of it came to me, out of the blue, in a text from The Scotsman newspaper journalist, Conor Matchett. I had no idea the appeal had been heard or that my name and my disability, my cancer, were going to feature in a public document, published on a website, by the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. You see, I had no rights. I am othered. Other people have rights. I don’t. I can be discussed in Scotland’s highest court, and I don’t even have a right to be told that it’s happening. How would you like that? Do you think that’s fair? Or remotely acceptable? By Lord Carloway, who is unaccountable to anyone for his actions.

I’d been put in touch with Matchett by Russell Findlay MSP about the Note. The tenor of Matchett’s text was to effect that he was an experienced reader of court judgements and opinions, but even he couldn’t decipher the obscurity of the detail and reasoning in this judgement. He had no real idea what the substance of the issues it sought to address was. Open justice. On both counts. The personal aspect for me. And the comprehensibility aspect for Matchett and lesser mortals. I tried to explain to Matchett that it was important and what it was about. I’ve literally never heard from Matchett again. A familiar pattern of experience with journalists in Scotland in relation to this material. I don’t know why. The Inner House judgement was suspiciously under-reported. Maybe they didn’t understand it? Maybe it’s something else?

The appeal was decided on a very simple approach. Paragraphs 39 to 41 detail that the simple, straightforward, ordinary meaning of the words used in section 19 of the Inquiries Act make it clear that restriction orders can only apply to matters falling within an inquiry’s terms of reference, i.e. the investigation into child abuse in Scotland. Now, common sense tells you that it’s difficult to make an “honest mistake” about interpreting and applying that approach. Particularly if you have at your disposal a large team of publicly funded lawyers and the Dean of Faculty. Yet the “honest mistake” explanation is Lady Smith’s continuing position. What do you think?

And Lord Carloway did his best to cover up for Lady Smith in the remaining “obiter” supportive comments made about her efforts and approach. Where’s the evidence? Show the public the data supporting the claims about Lady Smith’s success and what a good job she’s doing. Absolutely nothing about her blatant, outrageous and cruel disability discrimination towards me when I was seriously ill with cancer. My rights are completely left out of account. As are my rights to be heard, or even be informed about and participate in public court proceedings engaging my privacy and interests. This is utterly shameful and to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Othering at the highest level in Scotland.

1https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/18/lockerbie.gerardseenan

2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWyRljBAs0

3https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56587299

4https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh035.pdf?sfvrsn=0

5https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60496221

6https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for opinions/2022csih5.pdf?sfvrsn=a7a50f23_1

Oops! Not that kind of truth.

This short chapter details and describes what happened when the BBC confirmed the presence of my Note, dated 1^st April 2019, as an agreed production in the proceedings in BBC v Lady Smith. The chapter also describes the BBC’s about turn on the matter, with Journalist Andrew Picken professing to have made a terrible mistake. The chapter also details the Dean of Faculty Dunlop’s memory difficulties on the matter. My efforts to confront the issue with the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session are explained.

It’s fairly easy to see that Lord Carloway’s supportive comments of Lady Smith’s approach are intended to protect her from being sued by me following the appeal. It didn’t work. I raised, and continue to pursue, a second ET claim against Lady Smith for disability discrimination and victimisation by making unlawful restriction orders in relation to my 2019 ET claim, which constituted a protected act. The rationale is clear, simple and straightforward. In essence, it is as follows:

(i) Lady Smith made three restriction orders dated 25 July 2019; 9 September 2019; and 2 March 2020;

(ii) Each order specifies and narrates, inter alia, that it relates to my bringing of Employment Tribunal proceedings or to the content and detail contained within the 2019 ET claim;

(iii) Each order was unlawfully made;

(iv) Each order unlawfully prohibited me from “disclosing or publishing”, without Lady Smith’s prior consent, identified documentation within the ET claim; and

(v) Each order unlawfully restricted and prevented me from carrying out or “doing” a range of acts protected by section 27(2) of the Equality Act 2010, and other acts without Lady Smith’s prior consent.

I continue to pursue this second ET claim against Lady Smith. She continues to defend it using public funds allocated by the Scottish Government for the investigation of child abuse in Scotland. Lady Smith’s principal line of defence advanced again by Napier? She is immune from suit in terms of section 37 of the Inquiries Act because she made three mistakes and was acting in good faith in doing so. Do you believe her? The ET Judge appears enthusiastic about that line. He’s even ordered me to plead and prove a factual basis for contending that Lady Smith wasn’t acting in good faith. This is how corruption works in Scotland. Dunlop continues to act on her behalf and otherwise assist her, except in the ET, where she’s represented by Napier. And also now by a wee man who’s so over-privileged that he doesn’t require to punctuate his emails, David Ogilvy of Turcan Connell, Solicitors. This is an interesting development, given that Lady Smith used the SCAI solicitors, Summers and Lavelle, in the 2019 ET proceedings. In any event, in both, Lady Smith is using public funds allocated to the SCAI.

Lady Smith continues to act with blatant dishonesty. I appreciate that this is a serious allegation. It is true, and I will be content to prove it, if necessary, in any forum.

I hope you’ll understand if I tell you I was angry about the content of Lord Carloway’s appeal judgement, although I was very pleased that the restriction orders had been quashed. Carloway and his colleagues in the Inner House have such an appalling record of being overturned on appeal to the UK Supreme Court that he will not have been able to risk being overturned in a case which turned on the simple, straightforward, interpretation of the language used in a UK statute.

I was again disturbed by the blatant corruption employed in the Inner House proceedings. The Note was an agreed production in the process, the papers lodged in court. An agreed production is a document whose terms are not in dispute between the parties. It can be referred to, and read, by the court. My Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019, was referred to in open court during the first hearing before Lord Boyd. Picken was present in court. It formed part of the process before the Inner House, therefore, for the appeal. The Note had been sent by me to Lord Carloway on 30^th July 2019 in circumstances that I’ll tell you about shortly. Lord Carloway may also have had knowledge of the Coltart events since he was Faculty Treasurer when Hardie was Dean in 1996-97. Lord Pentland definitely had knowledge since he was Solicitor General in Crown Office at the time under his own name, Paul Cullen QC.

That meant that the contents of the Note were an open secret in the proceedings that were substantially about me, but into which I was not invited, nor was my participation required or facilitated. The detail was known about by all participants – solicitors, counsel, clerks, judges and, of course, clients, such as Picken representing the BBC. I decided that the blatant corruption was too much. I considered the law and decided to try to become a party in the proceedings, even though the judgement had been pronounced and published. I found a 19^th century case which provided authority that what I was thinking about doing was competent in law.

Since the court order giving effect to the decision, the interlocutor, had to be appealed within twenty-one days, I approached the BBC in order to make absolutely sure that the factual basis for my application, the presence of the Note as an agreed production, was definitely correct. I didn’t want to risk turning up in the Inner House and getting my head kicked in for making serious allegations which had no basis in fact.

In 2021, Picken had previously been careful to check with one of the BBC’s solicitors responsible for the BBC’s representation in the case, Elaine Robertson, that what he had told me was correct about the Note. It had taken weeks, with me having to remind Picken on several occasions. But, eventually, Robertson authorised Picken to tell me that the Note was an agreed production. So, on 3^rd March 2022, I was double checking what I’d previously been told by Picken with Robertson’s confirmation of matters, in 2021.

In order to protect myself if a hearing of my intended motion was appointed, I set out my proposal in writing to Robertson in a message dated 3^rd March 2022. It read:

“Dear Ms Robertson

I refer to the judgment of the Lord President in the BBC’s reclaiming motion last week, accessible here¹.

Standing certain comments made by the Lord President, I am seriously considering enrolling a motion in the process still currently at large before the Inner House seeking to become an additional party in terms of RCS 58.14. My proposed intention would not be to challenge the substantive decisions already made. Obviously, I am broadly content, for my own reasons, with the ultimate result the BBC has achieved here.

My intention, if such a motion is enrolled, would be to raise matters of (perhaps constitutional) importance that appear to arise from the Lord President’s judgment and from the conduct of the proceedings as a whole. These issues appear to be important matters in the public interest and newsworthy in their own right. They are made clear below.

In support of such a motion, I would be minded to argue:

(1) That the proceedings ought to have been formally intimated to me by the court ex proprio motu at first instance and at reclaiming;

(2) that, standing the personal matters relating to me referred to in the Lord President’s opinion (and, most likely it seems in the productions and documentary materials before the court), the court (at both stages) has acted in flagrant breach of natural justice by its failure ex proprio motu to ensure that I had the right to be heard prior to such remarks being made; and

(3) that the Lord Ordinary (Lord Boyd), Lords Carloway and Pentland ought all to have recused for reasons related to the fact that my “Note for SCAI”, dated 1 April 2019, is now understood by me to be part of the process. Objectively assessed, all three judges ought to have recused because of their personal knowledge of, and connection with, events and persons referred to in the Note; and/or knowledge of the content of the Note and prolonged failure to address the issues raised therein.

I am writing to you, at this stage, to ascertain the BBC’s likely attitude in the event that these issues are raised by me in support of such a motion. I will be grateful if you will please let me know.

If appropriate, I will seek to ascertain the attitude of the respondent in due course once I have established the BBC’s likely attitude.

I look forward to hearing from you in early course.

Yours sincerely

John Halley.”

I received the following reply on 4^th March 2022:

“Dear Mr Halley

Thank you for your email of 3rd March. I have now taken instructions from my clients.

If you were to enrol a motion before the court as you outline, the BBC would take no position on the matter, these being issues entirely for the court.

Yours sincerely

Elaine Robertson

Elaine E M Robertson BA (Hons) LLB (Hons)

Advisor

BBC Scotland Legal Department

Zone 3.03, 40 Pacific Quay

Glasgow G51 1DA”.

Picken thought I’d be disappointed because the BBC were not going to actively support my motion. I infer that that’s what the BBC discussions were about. It would have been dynamite if the BBC were to support me. You’d maybe expect a truth-focused, publicly funded, national news corporation to do so. In the public interest. But I was pleased the BBC weren’t going to oppose me, since they held the judgement in their favour. An appeal of any sort would potentially put that in danger. In those circumstances you might expect the BBC, who’ve shelled out a lot of money on the case, to protect what they’d achieved. Also, crucially, Robertson had confirmed, again, after consultation, that my knowledge about the Note’s existence as an agreed production in the case was correct.

Next, I had to check what Lady Smith’s position was. Normally the loser would be happy for someone else to appeal. That would have the effect of “opening up the interlocutor” and presenting Lady Smith with another chance to make successful arguments before the UKSC in London, if she could. Of course, Lady Smith didn’t want this case going anywhere near the UKSC.

Predictably, Lady Smith’s position, using the SCAI solicitors, was to oppose. You can almost hear Dunlop’s articulation of the opposition, which, I infer, he most likely advised on:

“The motion is opposed.

The motion enrolled is both inept and incompetent, since (a) it does not specify what order the Party Minuter actually asks the court to pronounce, and (b) albeit disclaiming any intention to do so (per para (1) of the Reasons for the Motion), the Party Minuter then goes on to make complaints about the subject of the judgment already issued, including an assertion that all members of the Court should have recused themselves. Such matters cannot competently now be raised: Court of Session Act 1988, s.39.”

You’ll notice it doesn’t go anywhere near the Note, its existence as an agreed production in the case, or its contents. But it doesn’t seek to oppose my motion on the basis that it is factually incorrect, i.e. that the Note didn’t form part of the process as an agreed production in the case. Surely that would have been the obvious answer, if I was incorrect about the Note’s existence as an agreed production? Instead, the opposition defaults to what they usually default to. Technicality, or quirky form, instead of substance. My motion raised issues of real substance and importance. Those issues were simply avoided in the notice of opposition by Lady Smith. No doubt because I could eventually ask the UKSC in London for leave to appeal, assuming it was refused by the Court of Session.

I enrolled my motion in the following terms on 15^th March 2022:

“THE MOTION IS: On behalf of John Halley, Advocate (“the applicant”), a person to whom the criteria in RCS 58.14(1)(a) and (b) apply: for leave to enter the process for the reasons detailed below; and for such further orders as are considered appropriate to enable the applicant, to participate in the proceedings.

REASONS FOR MOTION (if necessary):

(1) That the applicant does not intend to challenge the substance of the Court’s judgment dated 23 February 2022, nor to open up matters already determined by the Court. However, he intends, in his own interests, in the interests of justice and in the public interest, to obtain determination in relation to the following matters which necessarily arise from the Court’s judgment. The proceedings ought to have been formally intimated to the applicant by the Court ex proprio motu at first instance and at reclaiming. It is pars judicis to give an opportunity of appearing to any party that the court sees in the course of the process to be interested in the result. Where such a person has not applied to be sisted, the court may order intimation to him, to enable him if so advised to sist himself as a party (Lord Blantyre v Lord Advocate (1876) 13 S.L.R. 213, per Lord Deas at 214). This, and the issues detailed below, fall to be competently and appropriately determined at this stage, notwithstanding the Court’s judgment on the substantive issues between the existing parties (Orr Ewing’s Trustees v Orr Ewing & others (1884) 12 R. 343; and Shaw v Caledonian Railway (1888) 15 R. 504).

(2) That, in view of personal matters relating to the applicant, referred to in the Lord President’s opinion (and in the productions and documentary materials, including (it is reasonably thought) a hospital discharge summary following cancer surgery), the court (at both stages) has thus far acted in breach of natural justice and in violation of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR by its failure ex proprio motu to ensure that the applicant was enabled to exercise the right to be heard prior to such remarks being made in the absence of the applicant’s comments.

(3) That the Lord Ordinary (Lord Boyd), the Lord President (Carloway) and Lord Pentland ought all to have recused for reasons related to each of their personal and/or professional connections to the factual detail contained in the “Note for SCAI”, dated 1 April 2019, (which, having been rejected by Lady Smith in the SCAI and with FSL fee notes in relation thereto remaining unpaid, is the intellectual property of the applicant) which is understood to form part of this process. Objectively assessed, all three judges ought to have recused because of their personal knowledge of, and connection with, events and persons referred to in the Note; and/or knowledge of, or in relation to, the contents of the Note in circumstances in which any necessary investigations of the matters referred to in the Note are likely to include contributions from each of them. “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa. It is a principle which is applied much more widely than a literal interpretation of the words might suggest. It is not confined to cases where the judge is a party to the proceedings. It is applied also to cases where he has a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome, however small.” (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 119; [1999] 2 W.L.R. 272, per Lord Hope of Craighead @ p140).

(4) It is necessary in the interests of the applicant, in the interests of justice and in the public interest that all of the issues identified herein are raised at this stage in this process. The issues now identified (except intimation, recusal and those arising at first instance) could not have been identified by the applicant prior to seeing the Opinion of the Court issued on 23 February 2022. The applicant, and society as a whole, ought to be able to assume that justice will not only be done in cases such as the present proceedings, but that justice will be seen to be done.”

I received the following response from Callum Richardson, Clerk to the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session, on 16^th March 2022:

“Dear Mr Halley,

I refer to the attached motion which you sent to the Inner House section yesterday, Tuesday 15 March 2022.

I have discussed the matter with the court and would confirm the motion cannot be accepted on the basis it is manifestly incompetent. The matter before this court is now functus in terms of section 39 of the Court of Session Act 1988.

Regards.

Callum Richardson

First Division Clerk”.

I was making very serious allegations in my motion. Particularly in relation to the factual basis for recusal of three of the four judges who had dealt with the case in the Court of Session. I didn’t do that lightly. I wouldn’t do that lightly. If I had been factually incorrect in the assertions I’d made, the judges could have hauled me in, given me the kicking of my life, and found me in contempt of the highest court geographically in Scotland. The factual basis about the Note was confirmed to me by Picken and Robertson of the BBC, and not (then) denied by Lady Smith, Summers, Lavelle (solicitors to SCAI) and Dunlop. The judges weren’t denying it either. They were simply trying to conveniently side-step it.

I left matters there, which I now bitterly regret. I wish I’d applied then to the UKSC in London for leave to appeal. If I had done that in March 2022 then the trauma and monstering in the media which I’ve subsequently had to endure might not have happened. But you can see from all of this, the knives were out for me.

Following all of this, I was still determined to hold Lady Smith to account for her disability discrimination and for covering up serious allegations of organised child sexual abuse by failing to investigate my Note. I decided I was going to raise a second ET claim against her. I think it was that course of action which drove Lady Smith, Dunlop, Carloway and others down the monstering route.

In preparation for this, and in relation to the Note and the BBC case, I intimated a prospective professional conduct complaint to Dunlop by email on 22 June 2022 at 7.08 am. He responded, point by point, by email on the same day, at 10.58. Very Dunlop. It stated:

“Dear John

I note, with surprise, your email. I do not accept the criticism contained therein and, for the reasons given below, leave you to take up any complaint with the SLCC. I trust you have their details: if not, please let me know.

In what follows, I require to observe Legal Professional Privilege. LPP belongs, of course, to Lady Smith. I am not able to breach that privilege unless waived. I can, however, respond to your complaints insofar as doing so would not contravene LPP. Where I consider LPP is engaged, I will say so.

Responding to your numbered paragraphs (my comments in red):

1. At the determination of the BBC’s petition at first instance it appears from the court’s judgment that a document drafted by me, namely Note for SCAI dated 1 April 2019 (“the Note”), was presented to the court as one of the documents which formed part of the process in an Employment Tribunal claim brought by me against Lady Smith. As you know, the process was never intimated to me. My request to see a copy of the pleadings was refused by Lady Smith.

I have no recollection of a Note for SCAI dated 1 April 2019. I see no reference to it in the Judgment of Outer or Inner House, or in the note that I have of submissions I made to either Court.

2. The factual assertion that the Note formed any part of the Employment Tribunal process is incorrect and untrue. The Note was never submitted to the Employment Tribunal. Accordingly, you may appear to have misled the court on a material matter of fact.

As above, I have no recollection of this Note or making submissions regarding same. If you can point to the aspect of the OH judgment I can reflect on this further. My submissions are noted by Lord Boyd at para’s [55]-[68]: can you point to where you contend I founded on this Note?

3. The Note details necessary investigations which, in my view, required to be conducted by the SCAI in relation to the trafficking of young people in care through prostitution. The Note identifies some individuals who may have been involved in such exploitation. One named person is Lord Hardie. The judge to whom the hearing of the BBC’s petition was allocated was Lord Boyd of Duncansby. As you know (as is common knowledge), Lord Boyd was Lord Hardie’s long term associate, both politically and professionally, over many years. In the circumstances, I am concerned that your failure to invite Lord Boyd to recuse may amount, in the circumstances, to professional misconduct. Frankly, I am anxious and concerned that the whole circumstances may amount to corruption.

This further detail confirms my initial thinking as per the earlier paragraphs. I am sure that not only did I not refer to the Note to which you refer, but that I have never seen it. The contents you describe are contents that I would remember, and I have no recollection of any mention in any document of these matters. I have considered whether or not I can even say this to you, given LPP, but on reflection I think I can.

4. In the BBC’s successful reclaiming motion the judgment was given by the Lord President, Lord Carloway. Lords Pentland and Woolman comprised the other members of the First Division. I apprehend that you may have been aware, at the time of the hearing of the reclaiming motion, that the Lord President had received a copy of the Note in about July 2019. This fact, as well as the Lord President’s very likely prior knowledge of some concerns detailed in the Note from around 1996, when he was Treasurer of Faculty, necessitated that a motion ought to have been made by you that the Lord President recuse. No such motion appears to have been made by you. 

I did not make any motion that any judge recuse himself, there being no proper professional basis upon which to do so.

5. You will also have been aware at the time of the reclaiming motion that Lord Pentland is mentioned (as Paul Cullen, Q.C.) in relation to his tenure as Solicitor General for Scotland. On account of his prior knowledge of relevant matters, Lord Pentland should also, apparently, have been invited by you to recuse. As you may be aware, I have previously attempted to draw these concerns to their Lordships’ attention.

I am unaware of any previous representations made by you, or of any basis upon which any judge might have been invited to recuse himself.

6. Further, it appears to me that, as Dean of Faculty from 14 July 2020 to date, your conflicted conduct in connection with matters relating to my own interests, may raise issues of professional misconduct. In particular, standing your evident knowledge of relevant matters from having been instructed by Lady Smith, it appears to me that the following concerning issues are relevant from my own perspective as a member of Faculty:

a. The machinery detailed in the Scheme for Recovery of Counsel’s Fees has never been activated and applied in respect of my outstanding fees payable by the SCAI. Standing the circumstances in which these fees were charged by me, the Faculty’s failure to apply its own applicable mechanisms (in force from time to time) in respect of these outstanding fees may amount to actionable, ongoing, discriminatory conduct.

Recovery of fees is a matter for FSL. My only involvement therein is to approve requests for a “Dean’s letter” in the event of default. Such requests follow a reference to the Fees Committee. I have not received any such request regarding fees charged by you.

b. As Dean of Faculty you appear to owe particular duties in line with the Faculty’s Guide to Professional Conduct and other relevant policies in relation to disability discrimination against a member of Faculty. The whole circumstances detailed in this message, or aspects of them taken individually or together, may appear demonstrate conduct and/or knowledge which amounts to disability discrimination by the Dean of Faculty in relation to a member of Faculty, namely me.

I do not begin to understand how you can make this contention.

In these circumstances, I do not accept any of the complaints that you make. If you wish to answer the query I raise above in my response to para 2, I can consider this further – subject always to LPP. Otherwise, if the foregoing does not answer your concerns I must leave you to take matters up with SLCC: I do not consider that I have done anything wrong in resisting the Judicial Review proceedings.

Regards

Roddy Dunlop QC”.

So, as you’ll see, Dunlop’s position is in complete denial of the Note. No recollection. Can’t remember. On the part of the supreme ego of Scottish law. But he doesn’t go as far as to assert that the Note wasn’t part of the process.

Dunlop visited me at my home on 14^th September 2022. I invited him. He was made welcome. Like any other guest. He refused any hospitality and looked uncomfortable throughout. I gave him what for, as they say. He remained silent during the most uncomfortable parts, like when I was having a go about Hardie, the allegations against him and the fact that he was still permitted to chair the Edinburgh Trams inquiry. Of course, Dunlop is counsel for one of the core participants. So he said he couldn’t speak about that. Or any other matter of substance. I told him he must withdraw his Dean’s Direction to me dated 31^st August 2022. More about that later. He said he wouldn’t. I told him I wanted my outstanding SCAI fees paid. And an apology and compensation from Lady Smith. He stayed for a couple of hours of animated and, at times, loud, exchanges.

He left, shaking my hand overly firmly, like a strongman. He said, loudly, twice, while leaving our kitchen and in our hallway, “I’ll look forward to welcoming you back in Parliament House. It will be good to see you back in practice.” It was as if he was being recorded, and knew it, so he had a loud, vocal, record of having made that statement. Weird. My wife thought so too. He was visibly uncomfortable engaging with my wife who had met him on arrival. Suspicious. Something was going down. By now, of course, I know what it was. The monstering.

He said he’d check on the issue of the Note as part of the agreed productions in the BBC case. He replied (on 20^th September 2022) to an email summary of our discussion, which I sent to him the next day, 15^th September 2022, in the following terms:

“John

I write further to the exchange below, and your complaint, in which you assert that your Note of 1 April 2019 was illegitimately founded upon before Lord Boyd. I have checked the Joint Bundle (for the Outer House) and the Appendix (for the Inner House). The Note of 1 April 2019 is mentioned in the ET Pleadings (which you have), but was not produced in either the Joint Bundle or the Appendix.

Even this limited information may be covered by LPP. I have obtained the consent of Lady Smith to send this email. It does not amount to, and should not be taken as, a waiver of the LPP that applies to Lady Smith and SCAI in any other respect.

Best

Roddy Dunlop KC “.

The Note is mentioned in the ET pleadings. You can see this later on. Why the earlier protest of no recollection of a Note for SCAI dated 1st April 2019? The Note was sent to the then Dean of Faculty, Gordon Jackson, QC, in May 2019. The Note was intimated to the office of the Dean. Are we really to believe that Dunlop didn’t know about the Note? You decide. The Note is also referred to in my Public Statement which is pinned at the top of my Twitter, or X, feed @AdvocateHalley. It’s been referred to in the media. Dunlop was Lady Smith’s counsel between at least 2020 to date.

Soon after, In September 2022, I received a phone call out of the blue from Andrew Picken of the BBC. He was unusually nervous, it seemed. He was keen to tell me that he’d made a terrible mistake. My Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019, had not been an agreed production in the BBC case after all! He said he knew how important this was but he had made a mistake and given me incorrect information. I immediately went into cross-examination mode. I said, “Andrew, you were present at the first hearing of the BBC’s petition before Lord Boyd, weren’t you?” He said “Yes”. I then said, “You told me, at that time, that the Note was referred to in court and that you heard it being referred to?” He then began to stutter and said, “Well, that may have been the case, but….” Then a long silence. Picken always seemed a decent bloke. But he’s not a very good liar. However, this new denial of the Note’s existence in the BBC judicial review productions demonstrated to me that the stakes were high for someone, or even for several people, in relation to this issue.

The BBC has never reported the details that their court victory permitted. Does that failure have anything to do with the sensitivity of the Met’s investigation into Hardie’s finances and their connection to trafficking of children in care?

The dye was likely cast at this point on the monstering plan. The BBC would be a useful disseminator of the monstering media in due course.

1https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csih5.pdf?sfvrsn=a7a50f23_1

Where no Advocate has ever gone before.

As a result of having raised disability discrimination proceedings against Lady Smith in 2019, I’ve now found myself embroiled in various different court cases and tribunal proceedings. That’s in addition to the mass media monstering and the prospect of criminal proceedings.

The phrase “the Galaxy of Litigation” was coined by Andrew Smith KC, my Devilmaster. It wasn’t intended to be a complimentary term. Andrew asked me to detail all of the cases and hearings that I’d become involved in to see if there was a way to resolve all of them at once, by agreement. I initially asked Andrew to do this. He had offered to help me. I appreciated that. Andrew was a guy I could trust. I was under almost unbearable psychological pressure following the mass media monstering.

However, it became clear to me that Andrew appeared to be a medium for communicating Dunlop’s views and threats to me. Andrew’s also Dunlop’s Devilmaster. The threats mainly related to my imminent financial, professional and personal ruin; as well as to criminal conviction for fabricated sexual offences. The threat of findings of expenses against me in some, or even all, of these proceedings has been used by Dunlop, and communicated on his behalf by Andrew. Surprisingly, it’s not just Dunlop that appears to have been keen to use the expenses or financial threat as leverage. The Lord President, Lord Carloway, and Lady Smith too, as you’ll see.

It was obvious from my communications with Andrew as go-between that Dunlop’s number one priority was to ensure that the ET action I had raised against him for unlawful victimisation was abandoned without anyone knowing about it. So he was graciously offering to let me off without a finding of expenses. No consideration of the relative merits of the case necessary. I’m assured I’ll lose. The rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law can be relied on. Andrew told me he had assured Dunlop that Lady Smith’s disability discrimination was clear.

I prepared the Galaxy of Litigation table so that Andrew was able to understand how many actions were pending; what sort of proceedings were involved; and what they were about. The Galaxy of Litigation table details each of the proceedings, except the potential fabricated criminal proceedings. I say potential. That’s because there are no criminal proceedings, just a very unsatisfactory, unfair and unlawful fabrication hanging over my head with the threat by the Lord Advocate, Bain, to bring criminal proceedings at some indeterminate time. You’ll remember all I wrote earlier about compromised structures and proximity of relationships? The stench is strong.

The Galaxy of Litigation table is set out in full below. It firstly narrates at its head, as a crucial fact, that I was appointed Leading Junior Counsel to SCAI in 2015. All of the other actions referred to below follow on from that appointment. Next, it makes reference to Lady Smith’s appointment to SCAI. This was a pivotal development which has resulted, in one way or another, in all of the other actions referred to in the table. The next important factual reference is to my cancer surgery on 31.10.16. Then, after necessary recovery, my Note for SCAI dated 1^st April 2019.

At every point in the table where there’s an asterisk *, the Note and its contents are relevant. The purpose here is to let the reader see just how important the Note is in each an in all of these different proceedings. Each of the different proceedings is then referred to in horizontal sequence in columns 1 to 10. Some of the principal issues and people involved are detailed in the columns. Those referred to have all seen, seen reference to, or have knowledge about some details in, the Note. At the bottom row of the table, the names in the bottom box in each column are the names of people whom Susie Henderson, daughter of Robert Henderson, QC, has alleged she was sexually abused by as a child. John Watt has already been convicted because of Susie Henderson’s evidence.

“The Galaxy of Litigation” 27.3.23

JH Lead JC to SCAI 2015-16*

AS appointment as Chair 1.8.16*

Immediate & sustained attempts to force resignation of JH*

Cancer surgery 31.10.16

Threats by AS to raise proceedings/ cancellation of fee payments while JH seriously ill*

JH Note re Trafficking through prostitution of children in care in Scotland 1.4.19*

*Denotes relevance of Note to proceedings &/or persons detailed

Proceedings in columns 2 to 10 are ongoing, imminent or have outstanding issues to be resolved

Until I made my application to the ET in 2019 against Lady Smith, I’d never been involved as a litigant in any case before. I’d been involved in many different kinds of cases in which I was instructed to represent others, including prosecuting crimes of multiple murders, rape, robbery, violence etc., personal injury, divorce, planning, partnership, contract and commercial cases, to very, very many cases involving the interests and welfare of children. Since 2019, especially since summer 2022, I’ve had to become involved in so many cases that Andrew Smith KC described the situation as a galaxy of litigation.

And, as I’ve highlighted earlier, I’ve suddenly and apparently become a person who’s unable to make any sustainable legal argument about anything. Or so it seems from losing on almost every occasion anything at all requires to be decided. Even procedural decisions.

The reason for having to become involved in so many different kinds of proceedings is fairly straightforward. It can be summarised in one word. Corruption. That’s the same reason as explains why I lose on almost every occasion. The rule of lawyers. If you don’t fight them then they’ll take everything. I can’t just roll over and die.

In the aftermath of the mass media monstering, it was Andrew who first contacted me offering help.

In our initial conversation on 12 March 2023, Andrew was immediately and self-evidently sympathetic to the suggestion that the criminal allegations against me were part of a set up. At that stage Andrew was also keen to divulge his own knowledge, from a well-placed source he has complete confidence in, in relation one of the prime movers at the top (not Lord Hardie) having been interviewed by police, with a solicitor present, about matters related to historical child sexual abuse. He told me who it was. Andrew told me he’d try to have a chat with Dunlop and take things from there. Andrew’s tone was completely supportive and typical of what I’d expect from him at that stage.

I was also contacted on 17^th March 2023 by Astrid Smart, KC. Astrid was my friend while studying law in 1991 to 1993. Astrid sent me an email which included the following detail:

“On 17 Mar 2023, at 11:05…:

 Hi John

How are you? I don’t know if you are checking this email address but Andrew S said that you might be. I just wanted to send you my support, and let you know that your friends in Faculty are completely behind you. Anyone sensible will see the timings here and draw their own conclusions. I am not going to say anything more on Faculty email, but if I can help in any way, or you would like to chat or to message me, my mobile is below.”

Astrid has never been in touch again since responding to a text message from me on 20^th March 2023. Neither have my “friends in the Faculty”.

Andrew got in touch with me again by email on Saturday 18^th March 2023. He was keen to emphasise Dunlop’s concern for my welfare. Andrew said he thought it was genuine. That made me suspicious. I don’t accept that at all. It’s not my experience of Dunlop. He was not sufficiently concerned, however, to fulfil his duty to act in my interests, as Dean of Faculty, by ensuring that false mass media suggesting that I was a paedophile should be corrected. And that’s what Andrew had primarily got in touch with me about.

By this stage, having spoken to Dunlop, Andrew was recommending Dunlop’s suggestion that the ET claim I had commenced against him for unlawful victimisation might be withdrawn without a finding of expenses against me. This wasn’t an attractive suggestion since the whole point in litigating this matter before the “specialist” ET is that expenses shouldn’t be awarded unless there is improper conduct or other reason to do so. So this didn’t seem to be an attractive suggestion to me, having come from Dunlop. Andrew asked for detail of the other cases. I put the table above together for that reason.

I wasn’t in a hurry to respond to Andrew’s suggestion in favour of Dunlop. My ET claim against Dunlop was raised in November 2022. My principal reason for being the first Advocate I know of to take legal action against the Dean was as follows. Dunlop issued a Dean’s Direction under the Faculty of Advocates’ disciplinary regime to me, for the protection, and in favour, of his client Lady Smith. My criticisms of Lady Smith, on Twitter and elsewhere, are protected acts within the law, either protected by section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, or as a whistleblower under the complicated applicable codes and laws, depending on their content. Apart from those protections, I can rely on the general article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression that everyone else is entitled to. But by July 2022 there was another important consideration to be borne in mind when taking disciplinary action. By then, Lady Smith had retired. There was no fanfare, probably because I raised a second ET claim against her in June 2022.

Lady Smith is no longer a judge or Senator of the Court of Session. And certainly not a Supreme Court judge in Scotland. She is a retired judge. An “ex-judge”, the same as the Judicial Office for Scotland has described Lord Hardie. When Russell Findlay MSP contacted the Judicial Office for Scotland in late 2022 about whether Lord Hardie was subject to disciplinary investigation or action, they claimed that they had no jurisdiction in relation to him because he is a retired judge. The same as Lady Smith. Yet she claims this doubtful title, and nebulous associated powers. Lady Smith’s powers presently lie within the four corners of the Inquiries Act 2005. That’s it. So, by issuing a Dean’s Direction to me, copied to “Lady Anne Smith”, it’s entirely unclear to me what Dunlop thought he (and all of the other Faculty office bearers he had roped in) was doing. Lady Smith has no relevant status in that context. She’s just a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. This is a prime example, therefore, of disciplinary action taken by the Dean of Faculty where the person sought to be protected is not a judge, but a retired judge. My opponent. Not my judge. The rule of lawyers, rather than the rule of law. Also, Dunlop acts as her counsel and general fixer.

This is the text of the Dean’s Direction dated 31^st August 2022:

“Dear John

As you are aware, Lady Smith has raised with Faculty concerns as to your recent tweets about her and SCAI. I have raised these with the other Office Bearers. What follows carries the approval of all current Faculty Office Bearers.

Let me say at the outset that I recognise without cavil your right to freedom of expression. You exercise that freedom regularly to criticise others – including, of course, me – and I make no complaint in that regard.

However, as with most freedoms, they come with responsibilities. I am not convinced that you recognise, or meet, those responsibilities when tweeting about Lady Smith or SCAI. In particular, you have started to resort to ad feminem insults, and you have impugned the workings of the Inquiry without any proper basis therefor. Whilst I am not presently on Twitter, it has been reported to me that you have stated that Lady Smith is “Poor humanity”; that it was predicted that she would “be a ‘disaster’ for the SCAI”; and that she is a “very poor human being”, a “vicious disability discriminator”, and a “law breaker”. Such conduct is likely to impair public confidence in the inquiry. The unpleasant nature of your attacks is liable to bring Faculty into disrepute. The nature and frequency of your tweets are such that they may well contravene the Faculty’s bullying and harassment policy. I am also concerned as to your lack of adherence to the Guide to Conduct, in particular paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 6.4.3 and 10.2.

All of this is exacerbated given your previous dealings with the then Vice Dean, Ms Grahame QC. When she raised similar concerns with you, in 2019, you assured her that you had stopped tweeting about Lady Smith, and would not tweet about her in the future. I am sure you recognise the importance of Members of Faculty being able to take each other at their word. You do not seem to be abiding by the assurance you gave the Vice Dean, which is of particular concern as that assurance was passed on to, and doubtless relied on by, Lady Smith.

I understand that you are going through a difficult time. Assistance is available from Faculty, such as for example by way of its mentoring scheme. I would urge you to seek such assistance. In the meantime, however, I must direct you, as Dean of Faculty, that you should obtemper the assurance you gave to the previous Vice Dean, and moreover should not tweet further disparaging comments about Lady Smith. Any complaints you have about Her Ladyship should be made via the proper channels, such as by way of complaint to the Lord President or the Judicial Office for Scotland, or in legal action such as the further claim which I understand you have raised in the Employment Tribunal. They should not be made on Twitter, in particular given the inability of Her Ladyship to respond to criticism made in that medium. I make this Direction under reference to the Guide to Conduct, in particular paragraphs 7.3 and 16.3 thereof.

If you do not follow this Direction then I will be compelled to escalate the matter by way of formal complaint. I truly hope that will not be necessary. Finally, I should say that I recognise that you are likely to be angered by this Direction, and will no doubt wish to tweet about it. Nothing in this Direction is intended to prevent you from so doing: as I said at the outset, I recognise your freedom of responsible expression.

Yours sincerely

Roddy W Dunlop, QC

Dean of Faculty

CC – Lady Anne Smith”.

This pile of utter nonsense was what persuaded me to take action against Dunlop. He’s not even trying to hide the fact that he’s using disciplinary powers accorded to the Dean against me for his client and in the face of a second ET application for disability discrimination. This constitutes blatant unlawful victimisation. As if the law doesn’t apply to Dunlop. Or to Lady Smith.

But I was blissfully unaware of what they really had in store for me. That came later.

It should be noted at this point: I continue to hold a judicial appointment. Lady Smith does not. Dunlop does not. And yet, in the rule of lawyers, Dunlop and Lady Smith can conspire to “discipline” me and much, much worse. If I’ve got the legal analysis wrong, I’m sure someone will tell me.

Also, it seems that, as a retired judge, Lady Smith is beyond the disciplinary regimes that Lord Carloway has been using as a basis and rationale for developing the law.

Going back to the Galaxy, apart from Dunlop and Lady Smith, the other ET applications are for unlawful victimisation by Jamieson and by Tony Graham. Jamieson was responsible for payment of my SCAI fees in terms of my letter of appointment. Graham is chair of the Faculty of Advocates Fees Committee. It has a remit to ensure payment of counsels’ fees by solicitors and those responsible for payment. It should be noted that no other Advocate has not been paid fees under an appointment as counsel to a public inquiry. Ever.

This is the content of Graham’s “determination” in relation to my outstanding fees:

“Dear John,

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry/Lady Smith;

Outstanding fee note;

Faculty Fees Committee

I refer to the above. As you know this matter was referred to The Faculty Fees Committee. The Committee considered the entirety of the documentation available, and noted the unfortunate timeline in this case that was paralleled by your own health issues.

The Committee was of the view that it could not progress the matter further. Having reviewed the lengthy exchanges, there appear to be two fundamental issues:-

i. Whether the work carried out could be identified as being within the four walls of the instruction following the identification of a potential conflict of interests;

ii. Whether the fruits of any work carried out could be provided to the instructing party in a meaningful and useful format, or whether it would require to be duplicated by someone else given your health issues.

In relation to the first point, this appears to have been answered in the negative by the instructing party, and the Committee saw nothing in your responses that identified instruction that included the work carried out. On the second point, the Committee was unable to identify any fruits of instruction being produced until after the date from which instruction had been withdrawn.

I appreciate that you will be disappointed by this decision, but I hope that you will understand the Committee’s reasoning.

Yours aye”.

This is blatant victimisation. Ignorant of the issues too. So, I sued him. Read the Note for SCAI, dated 1^st April 2019, and form your own view.

Of course, Lady Smith is a principal witness in all of these ET claims for victimisation against Dunlop, Jamieson and Graham. I’m looking forward to asking her some questions. And Dunlop.

Anyway, back to Andrew. I replied to Andrew’s Saturday morning email of 18^th March 2023 that I’d think about things and get back to him. I didn’t appreciate the apparent support for, and advancement of, Dunlop’s interests. Call me an optimist, but I think I have a strong case in law against Dunlop and, barring the usual corruption that is guaranteed to happen in the ET, it should succeed. Can you imagine? Dunlop is actually trying to argue that the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is NOT obliged by law to refrain from victimising members of Faculty in terms of section 48 of the Equality Act 2010? That’s what he’s arguing, as I understand it. This appears to amount to hypocrisy apart from anything else.

Have a look at these @RoddyQC tweets on the subject of bullying and victimisation from 2021:

“We are living through one of the most authoritarian eras in modern times. Lack of accountability is already frightening. Now this: a senior civil servant calls out unacceptable behaviour by a Minister, and it’s the civil servant that has to go? Dystopia, thy name is the UK¹.”

“Making any advocate cry in court is unacceptable. The pressures on everyone just now are extreme. Bullying behaviour must not be tolerated and must be reported, and I would encourage all counsel to make sure this happens. @FacultyScot will intervene if necessary².”

I didn’t need to get back to Andrew. I was surprised that he got back to me. And I was astonished at what he was prepared to write in an email. On 22^nd March 2023, just 10-11 days after Lady Smith’s media monstering of me, Andrew sent me this message:

“Dear John,

The following is confidential of course and sensitive.

Following up on my last email to you, Roddy has been in touch again. He has informally spoken to Lady Smith and Lord Carloway. Both, and I quote, are “concerned and sympathetic” to your position. They are happy to explore the prospects of the cases coming to a halt without any issue of expenses arising against you.

As I said before, John, I know little about those cases and all I know is what I have gleaned from your own description of them. I am not even clear how many cases there are doing the rounds. But what I do know is that it will destroy you in the short term, and you will be fighting a system that will not let you win. I am sorry to say that but I am completely disillusioned by the lack of independence of the system that we live and work in.

There is I think a chance of drawing a line under all of this which is what I think you indicated to me before.

Have a think about it. If you want me to I will speak directly to Roddy and see what we can do to bring this all to a close. I am sure it can be done. The last thing you need in life is not only the substantial risk of losing, but the trauma of litigating, and the risk of losing everything you have worked for in life. But, as I said before, whatever you wish to do I will support you.

I have a fairly busy week this week and next in a long proof. But I am sure I can find some time to chat with you.

Kind regards,
Andrew.”

Lord Carloway and Lady Smith “concerned and sympathetic”? They were both up to their eyes in the othering and monstering processes. And relying on Dunlop. This is utter hypocrisy.

I understood this communication to be a threat. Of financial ruin for me and my family through awards of expenses being made against me. In cases that haven’t been resolved. And in which the other parties are all publicly funded. How can they be so sure?

But also, the very fact of Dunlop, Lord Carloway and Lady Smith all discussing these matters? Matters over which they ought not to be able to have any influence whatsoever. Matters relating, at least in part, to the tenure and independence of the holder of a judicial office. This was one of the matters under discussion by the initiator of disciplinary action, in consultation with others who are not judicial office holders, i.e. Lady Smith and Dunlop. I think this is the plainest evidence of corruption. The source appears to be Dunlop.

I suggest to you that this message is dynamite. It is evidence of coordinated and collaborative corruption. Is the purpose to silence a whistleblower who’s concerned about organised child trafficking, sexual abuse and the involvement of judges and lawyers?

What do Lord Carloway, Lady Smith and Dunlop have in common at the date of this message on 22^nd March 2023? All three are my opponents in litigation. Here they are, threatening me with anticipated awards of expenses in their favour. I haven’t worked since 28^th October 2016. Lady Smith and Dunlop were my opponents in the ET; and Lord Carloway in a petition for judicial review, opposing procedure in which I was asking the Court of Session for a protective expenses order. Think about that. I was asking for a protective expenses order in litigation against the Scottish Ministers, the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal and the Lord Advocate who had involved herself although she has no practical interest distinct from the Scottish Ministers. Her husband, Lord Turnbull, is an Inner House judge, close to Lord Carloway. These are all publicly funded emanations of the state. All opposing my request for a protective expenses order to challenge what my counsel says are biased and unfair Tribunal proceedings. Yes, astonishingly, Lord Carloway, the Lord President himself, has thought it appropriate and sensible to instruct counsel to appear on his behalf in a judicial review process brought by me.

So, I’m not just the first Advocate to have sued a judge, Lady Smith, and the Dean. I’m the first person ever to have caused the Lord President of the Court of Session to step down from on high into the well of the court and become my opponent in litigation. Sheer lunacy. And guess what? I didn’t get my protective expenses order. With Lord Carloway and Bain, the Lord Advocate, among my opponents. In fact, at one stage in the procedure, in a motion for leave to appeal, the bench proposed by the Court of Session administration included Lord Turnbull. He had to be asked to recuse, which he did. However, this speaks volumes about the Court of Session and the tiny legal establishment in Scotland. The rule of lawyers.

I know who they are, and I can identify the proximity of relationships. But the average person or litigant doesn’t. And they may not spot the problems where they occur. There appears to be no system in place to ensure Lord Turnbull does not sit in civil cases involving the Lord Advocate, his wife. This is an astonishing structural defect. I know, too, that Dunlop sees the problem with this degree of proximity at the top. Here’s his attempt to close me down in relation to the issue in July 2022:

“Lord Turnbull doesn’t sit in any case involving the Crown, John. You know that. Saying their marriage creates a conflict in such circumstances is both untrue and unhelpful³.”

Protesting too much. It’s on account of this structurally unacceptable proximity that Dunlop requires to revert to the personal endorsement, and personal integrity, routine:

“I see your point, LWD. As counsel for Messrs Whitehouse and Grier, I see your point. But I feel obliged to say that I have no doubt whatsoever as to the probity of Ms Bain. She is, in my estimation, wholly incorruptible, and a woman of unimpeachable integrity⁴.”

The structural problem is also evident in relation to Lord Carloway’s intervention as a party in proceedings against me. Never mind what the law says. You can see the problem with the most senior judge, who has power to authorise promotion, appointment and removal of judges, counsel, solicitors and everyone else in a system in which he is virtually wholly unaccountable, becoming a party in a case before the court over which he presides? Maybe that’s why it’s never happened before. I’m sure Dunlop would highlight Lord Carloway’s “unimpeachable integrity” in reply. And who makes the decision about indefinite suspension from office until such time as he decides otherwise? Lord Carloway. And with whose agreement are members appointed to the Tribunal? Lord Carloway. By deciding to become a party in proceedings against me, the Lord President displayed breathtakingly defective judgement. Concerning in the public interest and in the interests of justice. I must have really upset Lord Carloway. I wonder why? Was it to do with Lady Smith? Or Lord Hardie? Or Duff? Or something else?

In order to challenge the blatantly biased disciplinary Tribunal process instigated by Lord Carloway in 2019, because I had publicly criticised Lady Smith, I had to do so by judicial review. This was done with expert counsel, expert London and Edinburgh solicitors, all willing to act speculatively because the prospects were so good and the case so strong. Yet I have lost at almost every single stage. I wonder why? Is my expert counsel Aidan O’Neill, KC, wrong? I don’t think so. The rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law is the answer.

So back to Andrew’s messages. Andrew sent the Lord Carloway, Lady Smith and Dunlop message to me on 22^nd March 2023. I said I’d think carefully. I suggested a chat the following Monday, 27^th March 2023. They seemed to want me to stop, and abandon, everything on the basis that they wouldn’t seek expenses against me.

Threatening me with financial ruin was their new attack strategy since the ultimate goal they thought they might achieve by the arrest and media monstering hadn’t happened. It nearly did. Suicide. This may be a tried and tested method. There have been several Advocate suicides over the last few years and I wonder. Ask Gavin Dewar. He said he knew all about it. He thinks he’s a player. A crude little gossip. And an Advocate Depute. All of the cases he says he knows about need to be investigated in relation to what, if any, pressure was applied to these victims beforehand. And as to whether what Dewar has told me is true.

The following Monday, 27^th March 2023, came and went. I was left wondering and worrying about whether some sort of grubby or other deal could be done. I was consumed by anxiety. I could not sleep. But, actually, nothing was happening. Nothing at all. I was just being left to stew. ET dates were coming and going with proceedings put off because I was pretty unwell. I was debilitated by anxiety. If it was a strategic decision to hold out hope of a global settlement in the full knowledge that that was never going to happen, then that takes their conduct to an even higher level of cruelty and callousness. I couldn’t raise Andrew at all. Not by email or WhatsApp. Maybe there’s an element of the paranoid, but I was becoming very suspicious that I was being played. By Dunlop & co, using Andrew.

Eventually, Andrew got back to me on 14^th April 2023, having failed to call on a few occasions at arranged times. Andrew’s a busy man, but he knew my circumstances were extreme. We had a long chat in which Andrew said he wasn’t afraid of Dunlop, and his friendship with him didn’t cloud his judgement. He did suggest, again, that I might want to “pick off” the cases in the galaxy one by one and get rid of them for nothing, starting with the ET case against Dunlop. First. That was the second time the same suggestion was made by Andrew. I wondered who was really asking for this. I agreed to think about things and produce a further detailed note in relation to a possible basis for settlement of all matters. This included the need for assurances about joined-up investigation into organised sexual exploitation and trafficking of children in care. And it included payment of compensation to me.

The note was sent to Andrew on 16^th April 2023. I was actively led to believe that a sensible settlement of all outstanding matters could be achieved, as well as payment of compensation for the disability discrimination by Lady Smith and Dunlop and the outstanding SCAI fees. I also required assurances about the investigation of the details in my Note, and related matters. That was important to me. A deal breaker.

I heard nothing back and Andrew couldn’t be raised again. He eventually responded on 25^th April 2023 telling me he’d dropped a note to “the Dean” and there might be time to discuss matters with him during the first two weeks in May. The leisurely pace of discussions certainly didn’t suit me. I was very unwell.

I was very surprised to receive the following email message from Andrew, which was sent at 08.06 hours on the morning of 26^th April 2023, just as the cock crew. Its content led me to the definite conclusion that Andrew had been nobbled and was definitely advancing Dunlop’s agenda:

“John,

I contacted Roddy to see if there was some way of having a discussion regarding a compromise. I am afraid that the most he would offer, as would Tony Graham, is for you to abandon the actions against them without a finding of expenses against you and even then, that is not a firm offer for obvious reasons at this stage.

I of course don’t have to point out what is pretty obvious but I will: they are backed by the Faculty and by insurers. If they win, it is almost certain that they will seek expenses against you. Whether they enforce them or not, I do not know but I suspect the insurers will do so and that will led to your financial ruin. I also note that the sums you are seeking in the cases against them are, in the overall scheme, fairly modest compared to what you are otherwise seeking. I appreciate that you want to expose the way that you have been treated, but to be honest this is a high risk, expensive way of getting (possibly) the press interested for a short time, and the public interested for an even shorter one. Standing your relationship with the press and your feeling that they are also out to get you, I am fairly sure that you will get little interest that puts your side of the story to the public.

There is a window of opportunity to try to dispose of these two cases as discrete issues. I would not be fair to you unless I told you that I thought that you should think seriously about trying to dispose of these two cases and quickly.

I know that this will be disappointing for you, but I want to assure you that my view has nothing to do with any friendship with Roddy – I consider you to be as much a friend as I do with him. I have no friendship with Tony Graham at all and hardly know the man. And I think you know that I am not someone who has a particular concern about the reputation of the Faculty. Honestly, I think I can be objective about this: I think you need to consider the risks here, and it has been made clear to me that if this is not a possible resolution, they will fight you to the end without any hesitation. That will be a mess for you, the strain will be overwhelming and you may lose. And if you do, you will have a massive bill for expenses.

Sorry John, but please think very, very carefully about this. If you would like to talk it through I should be free later today after work hours.

Regards,

Andrew.”

What do you think? A bit of a rant? At 8am. Is there any point at all in threatening a person that you and your collaborators will do to him what’s already been done? This is what Dunlop appears to be threatening.

I haven’t responded to Andrew’s two attempts to contact me since then, both on WhatsApp a month later. After leaving me to stew again for a while. One by message, one on a call. The message was sent on Sunday 28^th May 2023 at 19.26. The call was the following day at 18.25. My conclusion? Dunlop must have wanted the pressure applied prior to ET proceedings due to take place at those times. That’s possibly unfair to Andrew. Deeply painful for me to even recognise.

But I have to try to protect myself and my family. I also have to learn, in some way, from adverse experience. Expenses appears to be the current weapon of choice for Dunlop, Lady Smith and Lord Carloway. The constant threat of incurring large sums in expenses for a person who hasn’t worked, or earned income, since 28^th October 2016. The threat is pretty clear, isn’t it? And it’s coming from Dunlop. These are pillars of the Scottish legal establishment. The rule of lawyers prevails. Dunlop, Lady Smith, Lord Carloway. Don’t ever doubt who’s in control of all of this. And Lord Carloway is completely unaccountable. Have you seen Lord Carloway’s performance before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee when giving evidence about a register of interests for judges? Google it. Have you heard of Sheriff Lindsay Wood and the malicious prosecution of the liquidators of Glasgow Rangers FC? Lord Carloway refused to sanction him for admitted dishonesty in the execution of his judicial functions. Google it. It’ll supplement your knowledge of a corrupt legal system badly in need of radical changes and restructuring. And then there’s Sheriff Duff. Lord Carloway is intent on fighting me, even as a party to proceedings in his own court.

The galaxy of litigation continues. The stakes are high for me. Expenses. With wholly publicly funded opponents. They’ll fight you to the end without hesitation. They’ll ignore the law, or “interpret” it to suit. And I can go to Strasbourg if I want. And I might even be right. But I’ll be ruined meantime. This is what corruption looks like. Is this the legal system you want, or find acceptable? Or just?

Please let them know your thoughts. You see, all it takes is for the good people, the vast majority of people, of lawyers and judges, in Scotland to do nothing. To say, thank goodness it’s not me. To passively adopt the position that it’s nothing to do with them. That’s how corruption thrives. That’s how organised child sexual abuse and trafficking of children thrives.

1https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1329781087934029830?s=20

2https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1408027355801698309?s=20

3https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1551290656127074307?s=20

4https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1659231596405309447?s=20

Because I said.

In this chapter I’m going to tell you about the judicial disciplinary Tribunal that I’ve referred to in other parts of this book. I’m going to tell you about why the disciplinary action itself amounts to disability discrimination. I’ll tell you details about its composition and the concerning twist that saw Sheriff Duff having to be replaced. I’m going to show you something about the backgrounds of those appointed to the Tribunal. Then I’m going to wind matters up for this book by saying something about what this, and all of the other stuff I’ve detailed, means in Scotland today, at least from my perspective.

You’ll remember me telling you that Lord Carloway immediately suspended me from my judicial office as a part time Sheriff when I first raised ET proceedings against Lady Smith in July 2019? Lady Smith was served with the ET1 form by the ET on Tuesday 23rd or Wednesday 24th July 2019. This is how an ET action begins. Lord Carloway then immediately wrote to me and enclosed an incompetent Minute of Suspension, dated 25th July 2019. It suspended me from my position as a part time Sheriff. Although it said the suspension was because of tweets that I’d been tweeting since early May, the timing suggests that that isn’t true. The timing strongly suggests, by necessary and irresistible inference, that the Minute of Suspension was imposed because of the service on Lady Smith of the ET1. Just look at the dates. My lawyers have tried to obtain any communications between Lady Smith and Lord Carloway at the time. Guess what? Lord Carloway refused on some invented and spurious basis. Nothing can be done about that. He’s apparently above the law and unaccountable.

Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits conduct which subjects a person to a detriment because the person has done a protected act. This is unlawful victimisation. Raising an ET claim is a protected act. Complaining about Lady Smith’s unlawful conduct towards me when I had cancer is a protected act, whether on Twitter or wherever. Lord Carloway’s Minute of Suspension and the instigation of disciplinary proceedings was blatantly unlawful. It’s obviously a detriment to me because of a protected act. As if the law doesn’t apply to him. But no one bats an eyelid when he acts unlawfully. Like with Lady Smith. These people are completely unaccountable. The rule of lawyers. Not the rule of law.

My counsel Aidan O’Neill, KC,’s view is that the Minute of Suspension is incompetent in law. A suspension must specify a time limit as a matter of law. Lord Carloway has specified that the suspension lasts until such time as he decides otherwise. It’s sort of like when you were a child, and the adult justified blatantly unfair decision-making with “because I said”. I’ve now been suspended for over four years. It’s even more curious than that, however. Read on.

It’s made all the more absurd by other events that followed the suspension by Minute dated 25th July 2019. Appointments for part time Sheriffs last for five-year periods. Mine came to an end in June 2020. Since I was suspended and the subject of ongoing disciplinary proceedings for telling the truth and exercising my statutory rights in relation to disability discrimination by Lady Smith, I fully expected that my appointment wouldn’t be renewed in 2020. I’d obviously thought about that before deciding to take action against Lady Smith. I was astonished when approached by letter by Scottish Government officials in about April 2020 and asked whether I wanted my appointment to be renewed. I said I wasn’t going to decline to have it renewed. It was renewed. I honestly don’t know why. And during the currency of disciplinary proceedings against me. At massive public expense. You see, I wouldn’t participate in the Tribunal. And I won’t resign. I’ve done nothing wrong. I have been absent from work and certified as ill since 28th October 2016. Why should I participate?

So, in order to compel me to engage with the Tribunal, they undertook to pay for my representation. They said if I didn’t engage by instructing counsel to represent me, they would ask Dunlop to appoint someone. Can you imagine? Maybe Dunlop could’ve appointed himself. He’s in everything else.

The Tribunal, under Lady Dorrian, Lord Justice Clerk and career-long proximate to Lord Carloway, Shiny Bob Henderson, QC, and others, agreed to fund senior counsel and London solicitors because I couldn’t secure Scottish solicitors who didn’t have some kind of conflict of interest. It’s the Scottish Government who has to pick up the bill. They’ve tried to get out of that. That’s partly what the judicial review was about. They can’t. They have to pay. At massive public expense. All to shore up Lady Smith’s disability discrimination when I had cancer.

The public expense is incurred in large measure because of the resources involved in running the Tribunal. The chair is Lady Dorrian. She’s the second most senior judge in Scotland. Lady Dorrian is not only way too close to Lord Carloway now. She is a career-long close associate of his, even when he was just Colin Sutherland, Advocate and then QC. She chaired the Judicial Appointments Board panel which appointed Lord Carloway as Lord President. He then chaired the panel that appointed Lady Dorrian as Lord Justice Clerk. That’s the way it works. Their career-long proximity was not even an issue, never mind viewed as a conflict of interest, which it clearly was.

But that’s not Lady Dorrian’s most sensitive longstanding personal association, which makes her appointment inappropriate to chair a Tribunal considering anything to do with my conduct in the circumstances. She is the friend in chief of Shiny Bob. Robert Henderson, QC. His daughter alleges she was sexually abused by her father and his friends. John Watt, QC, was convicted in the summer of 2022. Lord Hardie has never been prosecuted nor subjected to any disciplinary or other proceedings to determine whether Susie Henderson’s allegations about him are substantiated. The latter is what the whole system has been at pains to ignore and, therefore, avoid. As you can see, it’s very much in the public interest that there should be a forum for that to be undertaken. Otherwise, the whole system appears to be compromised in an important respect. The Nimmo Smith report, 1993 can be found here¹).

Nimmo Smith reports:

“6.18 When certain aspects of Robert Henderson’s financial affairs first came under investigation, as we discuss in part 13 of this Report, he took certain precautions. According to him, he expected that the police would arrive with a search warrant to search his house for documents. He accordingly prepared a photocopy of certain documents which he intended to hand to the police in such an event, and he gave the principals in a manilla envelope, to Leeona Dorrian, Advocate, for safekeeping. She has been a friend as well as a colleague of his for many years. She took receipt of the envelope on 18 August 1989, a date which she wrote on it herself, and retained it in her possession continuously until, by arrangement with Robert Henderson, she exhibited the envelope and its contents to us. Robert Henderson had no access to the envelope in the meantime. We looked through the papers and are satisfied that they relate solely to his financial affairs.”

So, given the significant references in my Note for SCAI, dated 1st April 2019, to Robert Henderson, QC, it seems obvious that Lady Dorrian, herself, should have declared at the outset of the Tribunal proceedings that she was compelled to recuse. Maybe she didn’t realise? I don’t think so. You can bet your life that Lady Dorrian knew about, and had read, the Note almost as soon as it was sent by me to Lord Carloway in July 2019. As did others. Agreement for this appointment had to be given by? Lord Carloway.

There’s a fundamental problem that arises when a small legal system, at the very top where it’s influenced disproportionately by relatively few, proximate, actors, persistently covers up the fact that serious allegations have been made against senior, or retired, judges. Nothing happens to such allegations, and they’re just left hanging. Or, more usually in Scotland, ignored. Given the silent treatment. A proper system of justice must be able to deal fearlessly, objectively, fairly and lawfully with such allegations. To determine what’s established in fact and what’s not. And to give reasons for making, or not making, findings. To the civil law standard, on a balance of probabilities. If it can’t do that, corruption is at large and thrives because of the potential for gossip, speculation and cover-up. Layer upon layer. Then the system protects and kicks back at legitimate criticisms through personal endorsements and highlighting the “incorruptibility” of individuals. That’s not fair. It’s not transparent. It’s not accountable. And it’s not open justice. The system becomes necessarily reactive and corrupt. All the time protesting that what it says constitutes the rule of law. The truth is such a system perpetuates the rule of lawyers.

One other aspect to be noted about the Nimmo Smith report is the list of those interviewed. Have a look. It’s not clear what each interviewee was asked about or said. However, the list is a who’s who of judicial and other appointments in Scotland, many of whom are still active. Beware of name changes. For example, the reporter appointed by the Tribunal chair, Lady Dorrian, was Lord Bracadale. Under his own name Alastair P. Campbell, Advocate, he was interviewed by Nimmo Smith and Friel. I don’t know what about. He was appointed as Home, or Principal, Advocate Depute by Lord Hardie when he became Lord Advocate in 1997. From my perspective, Lord Bracadale recommended Tribunal proceedings without even considering any legal approach, test, or other applicable standard. Just what you’d expect from a safe pair of hands for the job. And without having met with me because I was ill. The “right” judge. Again.

So that’s the Tribunal chair and reporting officer appointed to consider whether my conduct, by truthfully criticising and raising ET proceedings against Lady Smith for disability discrimination, constitutes judicial misbehaviour. Misbehaviour by telling the truth. And you’ve read the detail in the earlier chapters? The flip side is that Lady Smith is a liar by denying it. Surely, you might reasonably think, Lord Carloway should have at least investigated whether what I was saying about Lady Smith is true? Apparently not. And you can’t ask him why. Or appeal. He’s unaccountable. And remember, he now sees it as a matter of law that all lawyers practising before courts in Scotland are subject to disciplinary regimes that he oversees. Is it sounding ludicrous yet?

In fact, here’s a flavour of what Andrew Smith KC had to say about Lord Carloway and the legal establishment he presides over. This is an excerpt from Andrew’s email to me dated 25th April 2023, when explaining that I had no hope and should give in to Dunlop. Andrew was at pains to explain to me that, even if I have rights, sound arguments and legitimate concerns about cover up of organised sexual exploitation of children in care, I’ll still be falsely criminalised and financially ruined for raising these issues:

“Without being flippant, the system that you are fighting is not easily embarrassed. The bad publicity in all of this is likely to be water off a duck’s back. The scandal that is the Rangers debacle has been dealt with by Wolffe grovelling; paying masses of public money out to some people; then despite the most disgraceful conduct of the Crown and the police, and at least one sheriff, the entire thing was met by Carloway by a shrug of the shoulders – literally during the court hearing – and a “so what actually is your point Mr Smith?”

And guess what? Once the judgment comes out no one actually gives a damn.

This email is not an opportunity for me to moan about losses, but I have to tell you that the system will not be intimidated by the possibility of embarrassment. They don’t actually care. It is not their money, and they firmly believe that the system is brilliant. Any collateral damage will not bother them one iota in my opinion. It should: but it won’t. They will take their chances and brush any findings against them away as being an inconvenience that everyone will forget about soon.”

So that’s what I’m up against, in the assessment of senior counsel. I’m quoting these comments because change must happen in the interests of justice, in the public interest and for the rule of law to prevail. Rather than the rule of the lawyers involved. Like Lord Carloway, Lady Smith, Dunlop and others.

Don’t care must be made to care.

And it gets worse.

The next judicial member of the Tribunal was Sheriff Alastair Duff. Then Director of the Judicial Institute for Scotland. There’s been limited, but concerning, media about Sheriff Duff since the end of 2021². Described as “Ex-Sheriff”. That’s because Duff was permitted, by Lord Carloway, to retire after his arrest. This is the sort of approach to disciplinary matters that other corporations, institutions and organisations are routinely fileted by the courts, tribunals and inquiries for. Consider the conduct of the churches worldwide. Yet Lord Carloway allowed his proximate Duff to retire on a judicial pension after allegations of criminal conduct said to relate to involvement in child sexual abuse while he was working remotely in the Judicial Institute for Scotland. Carloway did not commence disciplinary proceedings against Duff. Why? Carloway must be held to account for this decision.

This is very obviously such an error of judgement on the part of Lord Carloway that it calls into question his tenure as Lord President and Lord Justice General. And all who know about this and support him. Transparency and accountability. The rule of law.

Duff has been credited with developing the Judicial Institute for Scotland as a teaching facility for the Scottish Judiciary. The claim is that it’s state of the art and world leading. That’s just a claim. It’s a nicely kitted out building with a mock court and all. But there’s been no objective analysis. There’s no empirical data. There’s no objective support for the claim. Just the usual. Like Lord Carloway and Lord Boyd’s claims in the BBC judicial review against Lady Smith that she was doing a great job with SCAI. Says who? Show us the data. There is none. Empty, hollow, words. Trotted out as if they’re judicial pronouncements or findings. Those comments amount to attempts to hide behind the trauma suffered by the victims of child abuse. And they’re an insult to those whose abuse and abusers haven’t been investigated.

Back to Duff. I was concerned when Duff brought Martin Henry to the Judicial Institute as some kind of “expert” in relation to forensic questioning of children. The poor quality of forensic interviews with children in Scotland has been a recognised difficulty for decades. Martin Henry was wholly unqualified in this area. Professor Michael Lamb and Dr David La Rooy were there too. They are real experts. The training event was in about 2013. Henry has serious baggage. Maybe he’s been unlucky, or perhaps it’s more concerning than that. Henry has a repeated history of being in close proximity to paedophiles and abusers. Repeatedly. And an interest and “expertise” in safeguarding. But from the paedophile’s perspective, it seems.

Shortly after that seminar, Duff added a link on the Judicial Hub to Stop it Now! This was a franchise of the Lucy Faithful Foundation developed in Scotland by Henry with Scottish Government funding. Stop it Now! Under Henry was accurately described by the BBC in a news item on 10 February 2017 as “Paedophile self-help site Stop it Now!³” That’s exactly what it was. Martin Henry appears to have moved on now and the franchise appears to be run in Scotland with a different focus.

I actually came across a report in a criminal case in Livingston Sheriff Court as Sheriff involving child sexual offences in which an “expert” report by Henry had been produced with a view to influencing the disposal after conviction. Henry has no acceptable expert qualifications to undertake such a report and offer advice to a criminal court. He predicates his claimed “expertise” on nebulous “unrivalled experience”, rather than qualification. “Unrivalled experience” is not empirically and objectively demonstrated. In fact, Henry’s CV doesn’t appear to demonstrate very much fieldwork at all, and none directly with children or in safeguarding. Except maybe at LGBT Scotland along with convicted paedophile James Rennie⁴.

Lady Smith has relied on Henry’s “expertise” in the SCAI. You should read it. Scotland deserves better than this sham. Or worse than a sham, perhaps. And don’t forget. SCAI had Michael Lamb on its original panel. The best in the world. There’s something very odd going on when Michael Lamb’s expertise is dispensed with and Martin Henry is relied on. Henry was way, way too close to Cardinal O’Brien as his “Special Adviser” on the very matters O’Brien fell from grace so spectacularly in connection with⁵. Advising O’Brien on matters such as “boundary violations” and accommodating known paedophiles “in our catholic communities.” Without telling the parents in the catholic communities.

Henry also shared a small office with one of the most vile, convicted paedophiles Scotland has seen, James Rennie⁶. In any event, even if Henry has any expertise in working with paedophiles, that’s quite a different, and incompatible, area of interest and expertise when compared with safeguarding from the perspective of the welfare of children. Sure, there’s an overlap. With a great slice of generosity, both might be described as “child protection”. But they’re necessarily mutually exclusive. And that separation must be rigorously maintained. For completely obvious child protection and safeguarding reasons. Such an overlap is open to abuse, depending on the individual. A dangerous overlap. The sequel to this book will focus more on these issues in Scotland. Henry was also appointed to chair the Scottish Football Association’s inquiry into historical child abuse in football. He’s an adherent of the “bad apple” theory. And the assertion that, in his experience, most child sexual abuse happens in families. That assertion may even be statistically correct. But it ought not to deflect from the need for investigation of organised child sexual abuse and trafficking of vulnerable children in care. Henry’s approach tends to divert attention from the need to investigate organised child sexual abuse in a joined-up manner.

Even at the time of Henry’s influence and participation in courses offered by the Judicial Institute, I questioned Duff’s judgement. I wondered, and was concerned, about the wisdom of connecting a total, questionable, quack like Henry to the Judicial Institute.

Back to the Tribunal. At 17.24 on 11 January 2022, my solicitors received this email message:

“From: Gare, Ryan <RGare@scotcourts.gov.uk>

Sent: 11 January 2022 17:24

To: [Solicitor email addresses redacted]

Subject: Tribunal Membership

Dear All

There has been a change to the membership of the Tribunal.

Sheriff Fiona Tait has replaced Sheriff Alistair Duff.

Kind regards

Ryan Gare

Deputy Head of Strategy & Governance | Judicial Office for Scotland

Parliament House | Edinburgh | EH1 1RQ |DD: 0131 240 6672 |BB: 07971293946”.

That was it, nothing else. This was before there was any information or knowledge at large that Duff had been arrested in the previous October 2021. The email message was odd because there is no machinery in the relevant law and rules to allow replacement of a Tribunal member to happen. Suspicions were raised. After research and discussion, a letter was sent in response on Sunday, 16th January 2022. The letter included the following:

“We write further to your emails of 11 and 12 January 2022, in which you set out Sheriff Fiona Tait’s replacement of Sheriff Alistair Duff as a member of the Tribunal in this matter, and the purported reason for this change in the Tribunal’s composition.

We have become aware that Alistair Duff ceased to hold judicial office on 1 December 2021 and that he has been arrested by the police. We have now been able to consider these matters with our client and wish to raise a number of questions with the Tribunal, and to request documents concerning its constitution.

We are sending this letter over the weekend as we have only recently been made aware of Sheriff Duff’s resignation by you, discovered the background further to our own research only late yesterday and the preliminary hearing is set for 18 January 2022. Whilst we appreciate you may not pick this up until Monday morning, we ask that this receive the utmost priority. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter as soon as read.”

This letter was written by my London solicitor. Maybe you agree with me that this is embarrassing for Scotland? I’m a proud Scottish lawyer. But I cringe when I consider this. Other proud Scottish lawyers might have similar sentiments.

As you can see, I was being ambushed, bounced into participation in a preliminary hearing chaired by Lady Dorrian without the necessary information being made available to fully consider the situation. The letter went on to set out the legal implications with authority in support of the views expressed. Those representations were simply and summarily swept aside by Lady Dorrian. The rule of lawyers rather than rule of law.

This is very typically Lady Dorrian’s approach. You can see this at work in different context, in an anxious child-related case, in EV (A Child) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 15⁷. This case shocked me when I was ill. Lord Brailsford was the judge criticised by the UKSC for his errors at first instance. This case is utterly shocking because of the vulnerabilities of the child concerned and of the parents. Another professional wouldn’t be able to keep a job after this kind of error, in any other professional context. Think about doctors whose negligent actings cause harm to vulnerable children and their parents. It’s also an interesting case because Lady Dorrian attempted to shore up Lord Brailsford’s errors by relying on his nebulous “expertise” as the Court of Session Family Law judge. Surely the UKSC’s analysis and scathing comments called the appropriateness of that appointment into question? No, it didn’t. He continued as Family Law judge until appointed as chair of the Scottish COVID Inquiry. And that’s another story.

As my lawyers and I then discovered, Duff had been arrested in October 2021 following a report to police by judges whom he was teaching remotely from the Judicial Institute. Duff is alleged to have failed to close down his connection at the conclusion of the remote session. Remote witnesses who were still present online are alleged to have heard Duff in conversation which led to allegations about involvement in child sexual abuse. A report was made to the police.

The Judicial Office for Scotland has attempted to stifle any publicity, discussion or concern being articulated about this. Allegations of actual involvement in child sexual abuse discussions in the Judicial Institute for Scotland. Crown Office has described the allegations against Duff as allegations of “communication offences”⁸. All offences involving child sexual abuse online might be described as “communication offences” if your motivation is to withhold and conceal the true nature of the allegations.

Compare and contrast this approach with the monstering of me. I’m not a paedophile. I have no involvement in child sexual abuse. There is no allegation whatsoever of any child related issue or concern about me. Duff was one of Lord Carloway’s inner sanctum. A very longstanding acquaintance of the Turnbulls, Alan and Dorothy. Going back to the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands and even Dundee before that. Dorothy Bain or Turnbull is the Lord Advocate. Duff is a friend and close associate of many Scottish judges. He’s a longstanding friend and close associate of Murdo Macleod KC, the “Presenting Officer” appointed by Lady Dorrian in the Tribunal. It’s very difficult to resist the conclusion that Duff is being protected by his friends and associates. Like Lord Hardie before, and after, him.

The paucity of information about Duff falls to be contrasted sharply with my own situation. The Judicial Office for Scotland was entirely forthcoming with information and misleading detail for journalists about me. They certainly made no effort to correct the misleading implication in the news items in the Times, the BBC and elsewhere, as shaped by Lady Smith. Don’t forget, this is the authority which deals with judicial matters. The Judicial Office was giving implicitly false information about me; or, at least, permitting the media to acquiesce in false and misleading details about a judicial office holder; while aligning itself with the misleading media narrative shaped by Lady Smith, who does not hold any active judicial commission. The irresistible inference, comparing the circumstances and approach, is of corruption. Concealing real concerns about allegations which, if established, amounted to organised child sexual abuse in the judiciary while diverting attention onto me in respect of whom there are no such real concerns or even allegations.

This kind of corruption, at the very top of the judiciary in a small jurisdiction, ought to be a matter of the greatest public interest and concern. Especially when it relates to failures to be acceptably and responsibly candid in relation to the alleged involvement of members of the judiciary in conduct allegedly relating to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Even more, especially where there is personal proximity between the accused and the most senior judicial and prosecution authorities.

Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides:

“5. Discussion of public affairs.

A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

The discussion of the difference in approaches by the Judicial Office for Scotland to my own, and to Duff’s, arrest is detailed here in good faith as part of an anxious and necessary discussion of public affairs in matters of grave concern. The concerns in the public interest are about corruption in the judiciary. The concerns are also about the need to fearlessly investigate organised child sexual exploitation in order that children can be kept safe. Any risk of impediment or prejudice to any subsequent legal proceedings, in either Duff’s or my own situation, is merely incidental to this important discussion in the public interest. I wonder if you agree?

The Tribunal’s other legal member is Gerry Moynihan, KC. Moynihan is a regular fixer for defective Scottish public authorities, such as for the Lord Advocate in the Rangers FC malicious prosecution cases. Those cases are monumentally embarrassing but beyond the scope of this text. Moynihan is a huge intellect and a thorough and safe pair of hands. He’s close to the decision-makers at the top. Moynihan was also an Advocate Depute under Hardie as Lord Advocate. More concerning, for present purposes, is the fact that Moynihan was appointed as an AD by Hardie’s predecessor as Lord Advocate, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Moynihan was, therefore, part of the small and compact Crown Counsel team in Crown Office at the end of 1996 and into 1997. That’s the period of time during which the Jamie Coltart case was being dealt with. The Met investigation in Edinburgh and East Lothian into organised trafficking of young people for sexual exploitation. The Sheriff Court prosecution was entrusted to senior PF Depute, Alastair Brown. A very capable prosecutor. Read the Note. Court hearings took place next door to Crown Office in the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh. I know how Crown Office operated in the early, mid and late 2000s. If there was a big, sensational case, the senior operators in Crown Office, including the Advocate Deputes, knew about the main issues, if not the full evidential detail. Especially if it involved the Dean of Faculty since all of the ADs then were Advocates, members of Faculty. The Jamie Coltart and Hardie (and Haggerty) case was definitely such a case. The Crown Office contingent from the Faculty of Advocates at the time, and senior PFs, read as follows (from Faculty of Advocates Grey Book 1997):

“CROWN OFFICE

25 Chambers Street, EHl ILA

LORD ADVOCATE…

The Rt. Hon. the Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, Q.C.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

P.B. Cullen, Q.C.

ADVOCATES-DEPUTE

T.A.K. Drummond, Q.C. (Home Depute)

M.G. O’Grady

Scott Brady

C.A.L. Scott

A.D. Turnbull, Q.C.

J.R. Campbell

R.G. Clancy

G.J.B. Moynihan

R.J. Reed, Q.C.

A.R. Dewar

Samuel Cathcart

P.H. Brodie, Q.C.

Simon di Rollo

CROWN AGENT: Andrew Normand

DEPUTY CROWN AGENT: Norman Mcfadyen

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR (HIGH COURT UNIT): W.J. Gallacher

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR (APPEALS): R.G.Stott”.

There are very notable judicial office holders’ names on this list, past and present, at all UK judicial levels. To the very top. It is reasonable to infer, or to apprehend, that these people, or at least some of them, knew that the Metropolitan Police were investigating the use of a bank account held by the Dean of Faculty, Hardie. In relation to allegations about the trafficking of young people between Scotland and London. The Met was investigating in Scotland. Taking a statement from the Dean in his office in Parliament House. Checking diaries at the Advocates Clerks’ stables. Senior officials in Crown Office knew about this. Members of the Faculty of Advocates knew about this. The Faculty Office Bearers, of whom Lord Carloway was one. Any full and proper investigation of matters relating to this must include eliciting evidence from the people on this list, and others, as to what they knew; and what they did, or failed to do, about what they knew. And what they’ve done since then, for instance, when the SCAI was set up with its particular terms of reference. Or when they read my Note for SCAI dated 1^st April 2019?

Moynihan is one of those people. It doesn’t require any acute forensic skills, nor any lengthy statement from me to DS Macleod or police about my Note. This is simply pointing out the entirely obvious, from reasonably available documentation and a modest degree of curiosity. These are just some of the dots that are obvious and require to be investigated and joined, or not, in any serious investigation into organised trafficking of children from the care system in Scotland.

For completely obvious reasons, therefore, Moynihan should not be sitting as a legal member of a Tribunal in which the detail in my Note may be a consideration. That much appears obvious to me. On this analysis, it ought to be obvious to him too. The list of Crown Office senior personnel from 1996-97 simply strengthens the stench. At least for me.

Apart from Sheriff Fiona Tait, said to have (unlawfully) replaced Duff, the last-named member of the Tribunal is a Scottish Government civil servant named Karen Watt. She’s a Scottish Government civil servant. Employed by the executive. Deciding on matters relative to the conduct and behaviour of a judicial office holder. Conflicted. That ought to be obvious.

At the preliminary hearing on 18th January 2022, Aidan O’Neill, KC, argued various preliminary points setting out the correct interpretation and application of domestic and ECHR law. In particular, Aidan was correct in submitting that the Tribunal, as constituted, is not established by law as the law requires it to be. The legal framework and provisions are a mess, and there are major structural issues with the judicial disciplinary regime in Scotland. Aidan’s carefully detailed and excellent submissions were simply and summarily swept aside by Lady Dorrian. Two petitions for judicial review followed, as previously explained. The procedure involved in those proceedings is presently winding to a halt. Except for prospective appeals and application to the ECHR in Strasbourg. More embarrassment. Again, Aidan’s excellent and correct submissions have been simply swept aside by the judges in those applications. By Lord Carloway’s inferiors who are subject to his management, and favour, and those same defective disciplinary procedures.

The net effect for me is likely to be the crystallisation of the scenario apparently anticipated, planned and threatened by Lord Carloway, Lady Smith and Dunlop, as disclosed to Andrew Smith and communicated in a threat to me. These publicly funded operators will use expenses, or costs, to try to punish and silence me. To ruin me. And my family. They will do so without hesitation, as I was warned.

These people have no shame whatsoever. Corruption through the rule of lawyers. Unaccountable lawyers. I’ve now been trying to hold Lady Smith to account for conduct which is very basically and universally regarded as unacceptable conduct towards a cancer sufferer. My rights are simply disregarded as if they don’t exist. The othering process. Worse still, Lady Smith has been empowered and emboldened to further abuse her statutory powers in the media monstering. Meantime, the Tribunal proceedings appear to have no real urgency for progress. I suspect they’re content to have all of these matters hanging over my head. And corrupt criminal proceedings. It achieves the purpose that Lady Smith failed to achieve with her unlawful restriction orders. Lord Carloway failed to achieve with his Minute of Suspension and disciplinary proceedings. Dunlop failed to achieve by his Dean’s Direction in favour of his client, Lady Smith. I have been silenced. For a while.

And the effect of that? The cover up of serious and longstanding allegations of organised child sexual abuse and the trafficking of children in care are not properly investigated. There is no joined up investigation of child sexual abuse in Scotland. In whose interests does that operate? Definitely not in the interests of children. Yet massive amounts have been, and continue to be, spent on SCAI. To the financial benefit of lawyers. The Faculty of Advocates has never been so busy, and never had such massive fee income, significantly from publicly funded inquiries, as now. You pay.

But if we’re going to consider the rule of law as opposed to the rule of lawyers, what the law actually provides for, then these facts seem relevant to me.

1. I’m a judge. I hold a part time judicial appointment. I’m subject to disciplinary proceedings instigated by Lord Carloway because I’m a judge. A part time Sheriff. If I wasn’t a judge, I couldn’t be disciplined as a judge.
2. Lady Smith is not a judge. She is a retired judge. She is an ex-judge, like Lord Hardie, see⁹. As such, she is not subject to judicial disciplinary procedures. Lady Smith holds herself out as a “Supreme Court judge in Scotland”. This is untrue. Or, at the very least, it’s stretching the truth to the max.
3. Lady Smith has no powers, as a matter of law, other than as provided in the Inquiries Act 2005 as the panel of SCAI.
4. Lady Smith has discriminated against me at a time when I had cancer, a disability. Because I have tried to hold Lady Smith to account for this unlawful behaviour, Lady Smith has repeatedly victimised me. Lady Smith has gone so far as to make unlawful restriction orders under powers entrusted to her as chair of SCAI.
5. Lady Smith, assisted by Dunlop, neither or whom are judges, has conspired with others to falsely present me, a part time judge, in mass media as a paedophile, a person who is implicated in child sexual abuse. They are my opponents in litigation. They know this to be untrue. Such an implication is untrue and constitutes unlawful victimisation. It’s also a scandalous abuse of power.
6. Lady Smith and Dunlop are implicated in the monstering of me in the media. They are implicated in the monstering of a judge.

Important facts to bear in mind.

I could immediately bring the judicial disciplinary proceedings to an end. By resigning. I should be able to rely on the rule of law. Lord Carloway, Lady Smith and Dunlop are bullies. Without proper foundation for their actions in the rule of law.

The Tribunal will rumble on. Maybe I’ll be reappointed in 2025.

My strong suspicion is that the press monstering of me was intended to achieve one outcome: suicide. Was Gavin Dewar attempting to solicit compromising material from me? He told me that the threat of exposure in the media is a tried and tested, reliable, means of people management. Ask Dewar. He thinks he’s a player. To be honest, I thought he was a wee gossip who made inappropriate and unwelcome advances to me by WhatsApp. Thank goodness for screenshots. I didn’t really take seriously what he said. However, I now think Dewar may have been implicated in setting me up. Weird behaviour. I can tell you much more about that. I’m confident that Dewar won’t add to the quality of decision making or anything else in Crown Office. He was always trying to milk me for information. He was always trying to tell me about who he knew, and his “senatorial” friends. He once told me that one of his “senatorial” friends told Dewar that he thought he could “go all the way”.

In May 2019, just after I had re-engaged with Lady Smith, Dewar told me that my Faculty of Advocates emails were being stored and accessed by others. This was so alarming, for reasons of confidentiality and security for myself and the whole Faculty, that I raised the issue immediately with the then Dean and Vice Dean of Faculty, Jackson and Grahame. Both responded within minutes on a Friday evening after 5pm. Grahame had an immediate explanation relating to the Faculty’s security system. She suggested that I should delete historical emails. I’m relieved now that I didn’t follow that advice. But I find Dewar’s input concerning in retrospect. I’ve no idea what his angle on this was. But, whatever his angle, this incident is deeply concerning.

Incidentally, Dewar also told me about an incident involving the bullying by Dunlop of Dr David Parratt KC in about 2018-19. Parratt was Director of Training in the Faculty of Advocates. According to Dewar, he resigned after he was ambushed in a surprise disciplinary meeting at the beginning of which Dunlop “confiscated” his mobile phone. Dunlop was Treasurer of Faculty at this time. According to Dewar, Dunlop then demanded access to his WhatsApp messages. Parratt was intimidated and gave Dunlop the access code. Dunlop was then able to view messages between Parratt and a young woman which Dunlop considered to be inappropriate. Parratt had to resign. Summary discipline Faculty style. Parratt no longer practises in Scotland. Othered. Maybe even monstered too. Without due process having been followed.

A final word on the Tribunal. I know what the outcome will be. It’s not a fair or just process in any meaningful sense. At its conclusion, whenever that may be, Aidian O’Neill, KC, advises that I already have a sound basis for making a second application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Aidan advises such an application is likely to be successful, but will take several years to progress. Lord Carloway, Lady Dorrian, Lady Smith, Dunlop and others know this, of course. That may be why the prospect of our legal system being shamed by their corruption doesn’t seem to bother them. They remain in control. As Andrew Smith, KC, told me, they can’t be embarrassed. The rule of lawyers.

The rule of law is capable of being replaced, as and when this is considered necessary in Scotland, by the rule of the lawyers at the top. Or some of them, at least. The law is what they decide it should be. Lord Carloway’s behaviour is the classic illustration. Sometimes it turns on what is convenient for them. Identify the decision you want to make and then work backwards and try to fit the law in to justify it. The decision will stand until it can be overturned. This is the antithesis of proper, sound, judicial reasoning. It amounts to weaponizing the law for the benefit of an identifiable, or sometimes unidentifiable, interest. This is an enduring, and continually unfolding, tragedy. Unaccountable, power wielding, dishonest judicial decision making. In my circumstances, it’s apparently driven by historical difficulties caused by longstanding allegations of organised child sexual abuse and of illegal trafficking of children and young people, some of whom were the most vulnerable in the care of the state.

Society, and all of its members (including me), should be able to expect and rely on a legal system and establishment that is transparent, accountable and which preserves the rule of law in furtherance of the principles of democracy. This text describes the rule of lawyers at large rather than the rule of law. Society itself suffers when any person, for illegitimate reason, can be othered to the extent that universally applicable rights are negatived. More so when any person, for illegitimate reason and by illegitimate means, can be monstered as has happened to me. It is all the more frightening when those processes are driven by a “judge” illegitimately supported by the legal establishment. Judicial discipline actually does matter. But that can’t only involve the concentration of all power into the position of the Lord President. Then there are no checks and balances. The exercise of power is open to the kinds of abuses I’ve been complaining about.

You might be tempted to give Lady Smith the benefit of any doubt that lingers as to whether the mass media that she shaped about me was intentionally and maliciously calibrated to make me look like a paedophile. As I’ve said before, we can only know a person by what that person has been proved to have done. Where character and natural disposition are demonstrated through proved factual events. If you entertain such a doubt about Lady Smith’s intention in shaping the mass media narrative, which many, perhaps most, readers and listeners concluded that I must have been implicated in paedophile activity, then look at what she has been proved to have done. Consider the detail set out about what was done to me when I was at my most vulnerable and suffering from cancer.

I believe that most right-thinking people in Scotland, and beyond, want to see justice for children and young people who were sexually and otherwise exploited by those with power. I believe that most lawyers and judges in Scotland also want to see that justice. People also want to be able to have, as minimum standards, faith, trust and confidence in their judicial system. Transparency and accountability in furtherance of the principles of democracy are critical to meeting those standards.

I’m wholly reliant on others to speak up now. I’ve tried my best. This text records some of the details of my experience in order that necessary changes can be made in the interests of meeting those minimum acceptable standards going forward. I have much, much more to say and much more detail to give. So do others. Do nothing and nothing will change. More will be othered and monstered when necessary. You should hope it’s not your turn tomorrow. All it takes is for good people to do nothing. For good people to go along with corruption and pick up their fees rather than actively assert themselves and challenge it.

I also believe that most right thinking people will see that there’s a red line that must not be crossed in relation to child sexual abuse. The investigation of such matters, even historical in nature, must be rigorous, thorough and fearless. We know this. We have watched other jurisdictions painfully set about this task. Australia and Ireland to mention only two. The task at hand, which should be clear, appears to be obscured in Scotland by the need to protect some obvious, and some less obvious, interests and individuals. The transparency and honesty of the investigative processes continues to be dogged and compromised by old stories and rumours, some of which have a basis in fact. This continuation is perpetuated by the need for the legal establishment to protect some of those whose historical activities require to be investigated. Matters are further complicated by the continuing direct participation in the investigative and decision-making processes by those with interests to conceal, and by others with interests to protect them.

I am not a paedophile. Yet I have been presented in mass media, fashioned by a “judge”, to appear as if I am, or may be, a paedophile. I’ve been judicially monstered. My only obvious offence appears to have been to pursue single-mindedly the need to fearlessly investigate organised child sexual abuse and trafficking of children in care.

The vicious response, and respondents, to that initiative, to date, are indicative of the nature and provenance of the interests which need to be protected.

The Scottish legal system appears to be calibrated, by influence of some at the very top, to systematically cover up matters relating to serious, organised, child sexual abuse and trafficking of children who were in the care of institutions. This cover up is effected by corrupt procedural and substantive decision making which demonstrates the rule of lawyers, and interests, rather than the rule of law.

What’s the answer? Fundamental change is obviously necessary and of critical importance to restore confidence. And not just the introduction of a register of judicial interests. Of course that should be done. It’s obvious.

However, it is my view that there requires to be some radical, structural, reconsideration of the entire Scottish legal establishment. Look at this newspaper article published on 7^th August 2023¹⁰. The article focuses on the continuing predicament of Susie Henderson, the abused daughter of Robert Henderson, QC. She has no remedy or even a forum for her alleged abusers to be held to account. She alleges two of those abusers are retired judges. It’s in no one’s interests that these serious allegations are simply ignored because they’re assessed as lacking corroboration necessary for criminal prosecution. Justice is not just the operation of a system. Justice must be related to truth. The article complains about the Faculty of Advocates having been an organisation in which paedophiles operated. There is a substantial public interest in investigating whether or not that is an accurate assessment. If it is, and in light of the Faculty’s current dysfunctionality under Dunlop, then change may be necessary. That model’s days may be numbered in the interests of justice.

Sure, keep the best traditions and principles. The issues relevant to necessary change going forward might be best considered and undertaken in a Royal Commission with power to make radical recommendations; and which requires, of course, to be wholly, demonstrably, independent of the current authorities while factoring in their experience, views and considerations, where appropriate. This model for reconsideration of legal systems has been used successfully in the past, for example in restructuring the law of evidence in England and Wales in the 1970’s-1980’s.

It is of vital importance that there should be an end to the proximity of relationships for senior appointments which can appear to compromise structural independence at the top of the legal establishment in Scotland. The position of the Lord President must be capable of being held to account for management, as opposed to judicial, decisions and actions. Most likely, some of the powers and responsibilities of the Lord President should be separated out and allocated in a manner that affords accountability while robustly maintaining the principle of judicial independence. Checks and balances.

Most important of all, there should be an independent anti-corruption authority established with powers to investigate all authorities, including Crown Office, the judiciary, the police etc. The Australian model is considered to be effective and might well provide an answer to the lingering issues of corruption referred to in this book.

Presently, the Lord President, Lord Carloway, is described as the “independent” regulator for judges. The Times reported on 26^th August 2023:

“Independent regulation in Scotland is carried out by the lord president for judges, by the Law Society for solicitors and the Faculty for advocates.”¹¹

Really?

And again:

“The Senators, which represents judges, said it was of “critical constitutional importance that there is a legal profession which is willing and able to stand up for the citizen against the government of the day.”

I hope this text will cause sensible citizens and others to critically reflect and to ensure that necessary checks and balances are implemented so that the rule of rule must prevail, and not the rule of lawyers.

It is no answer to the genuine difficulties involved in fearlessly investigating historical, organised, child sexual abuse and trafficking that difficult, sensitive and systemic issues will be laid bare. That is inevitable. However, all children deserve to be protected. Especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Effective child protection can only be achieved if and when there is willingness in the legal system to learn from the personal and the structural mistakes which history discloses. We will never learn, nor provide effective protection for the most vulnerable children, by covering up past misdemeanours and failures in the system. The rule of law must prevail over the rule of the lawyers and the interests they prefer to protect.

1https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228813/0377.pdf

2https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/concern-after-mystery-arrest-of-ex-sheriff-xr2h96rdn

3https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38922239

4https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/minister-accused-heartbreaking-betrayal-sex-28948168

5https://twitter.com/AdvocateHalley/status/1596035653308907524?s=20

6https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/29/courts-abuse-paedophile-ring-scotland

7https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0220-judgment.pdf

8https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/crown-office-receives-police-reports-in-alistair-duff-case

9https://twitter.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1663500098226061312?s=20

10https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/survivor-scots-magic-circle-paedophiles-30642625

11https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-community-in-revolt-over-reforms-undermining-rule-of-law-6pf3wcx83

NOTE FOR SCAI

Remit

1. At a meeting on 27 September 2016 Lady Smith defined my restricted role as Counsel to the SCAI as follows:-

“I understand that you, Colin, have identified 3 areas of research that you, John, could usefully address. I noted them as follows but no doubt you, Colin, will tell me if I have misunderstood. As presently advised, I can see that they fit with the remit albeit I am not entirely sure what is envisaged under the third head. No doubt that will become clearer:

i. what systems have been adopted and what outcomes achieved in other inquires relating to child abuse?

ii. what provision is now made – via e.g. the Children’s Hearing system, vulnerable witness provision and witness support schemes – to address the need to have appropriate rules, policies and practice in place to protect children in care (by ensuring that the voices of those who have been abused are respected and heard)?

iii. COPFS practices and policies insofar as relevant to the remit – e.g why, in the past, were complaints not taken seriously? What happens now? Etc

There is also, as discussed, the question of whether and if so, to what extent, the part played by the internet and mobile phones in modern abusive behaviour should be looked at together with the extent to which protections are or should be in place to protect children in care from abuse via such means.”.

Interpretation of remit

2. The summary and the remit itself are expressed in very simplistic terms. All of the aspects included in Lady Smith’s summary, above, involve consideration of large, possibly massive, amounts of material, especially the last-mentioned subject. During much of my time working on this, I only had access to relatively superficial and publicly available materials, together with my own experience.
3. Doing my best to apply my experience to the substance of that remit, I began by considering the subjects identified at (i), other inquiries, and (iii), “COPFS practices and policies insofar as relevant to the remit – e.g why, in the past, were complaints not taken seriously? What happens now? Etc.”.
4. I spent many hours identifying, reading and researching a number of lengthy reports and other materials relating to those reports (including literature reviews), as I had been instructed to do. I attempted to ensure that I followed up any “loose ends” by searching for materials and information beyond the reports available as far as I was able to do.
5. In particular, on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016, I had identified a clear subject that arose from the reports and materials and that I was able to reflect upon from my own experience. I had begun to research a topic or chapter on children in care who have been exploited through their involvement in prostitution in Scotland. This is an important subject, as will be seen below. It should perhaps be more properly called child trafficking through prostitution in Scotland, because that is its proper label. I have to acknowledge, however, that I have only scratched the surface of the problem. There is much, much more work to be done on this chapter. This was due to what I can only explain as illness, fatigue, acute anxiety and stress. This chapter requires to be thoroughly, fearlessly and independently investigated.
6. The following should be regarded as preliminary comments, observations and conclusions on the subject.

Previous Inquiries and Reports

7. Kent Report 1997

In his report entitled “Children’s Safeguards Review” (1997), Roger Kent provided what has been regarded as a “comprehensive” commentary showing a snapshot of areas of progress and of defects continuing in the care system as at 1997. This review was undertaken in tandem with the Utting review in England and Wales. The Utting report appears much more detailed and damning of failures in the care system than Kent’s report. Kent estimated that, in 1997, there were about 10,000 young people being cared for away from home in Scotland. About 5,000 young people were thought to be accommodated at boarding schools; about 2,500 in foster care; and about 2,500 in residential care.

8. One of the issues Kent mentions in the snapshot, but advances no further, is the sexual exploitation of children in the care system in Scotland as prostitutes and so-called “rent boys”. It is identified as part of the picture. The issue is never tackled head-on, as far as I have seen thus far, in a subsequent report or series of reports leading to the establishment of the present Inquiry. This is surprising given the acute nature of the subject within the context of any consideration of the care system or child abuse in general. As far as I am aware, the issue is not (yet) on the agenda of the SCAI.
9. Kent reports on the issue in the following terms:-

“2.13 Prostitution

Little research has been done in Scotland into the involvement of children in care in prostitution, although some English studies have recently shown under-16s of both sexes going out from residential care units to work as prostitutes. Young people who have a low self-image, who have been sexually abused and who believe that what someone else does to their body does not matter, are more likely to do this than others, particularly if their parents have put them forward for the use of other men. It may depend on the ethos among the children and young people within a home, but it seems that the same mechanism applies in relation to prostitution as to drugs: a lonely and isolated young person who is new to a unit may choose to follow the activities of the young leaders there.

Young people in care can get paper rounds or Saturday jobs, but of they need more money to pay for a drug habit, or finance themselves when they runaway, prostitution may appear superficially to be an easy option. Risks to them run from HIV through all the sexually transmitted diseases, and include physical violence from partners or from pimps. They are opened up to adult situations and adult emotions before they have developed enough skills to deal with them, and when they are still having to deal with many other emotional problems. They are likely to be the ones who come into trouble with the law, not the adults who are knowingly having sex with minors.

It can be extremely difficult for residential staff to deal with a problem such as prostitution when it has started before the young person came into care, and may indeed be the reason for their arrival. Skilled and proactive help is needed for this small group of young people, and specialist advice and consultancy should be made available.”¹

10. These paragraphs disclose knowledge of the existence of the problem of prostitution of children in care; but little actual knowledge about, or insight into, the problem. It’s tone and content may well be described as naïve. On a critical view, it may appear to lack the knowledge, experience, skill and appetite necessary to identify and deal with this very real, persistent and insidious problem. And this naivety does not appear to be accounted for by the material that was publicly available at the time.
11. A literature review forms part of Kent’s report. It is entitled “Safeguarding Children Living Away from Home from Abuse: A Literature Review”, by Andrew Kendrick, Department of Social Work, University of Dundee, 1997.² Pages 200 to 204 of the Literature Review is a review of research and literature in relation to “Runaways and Child Prostitution”. At page 204, Kendrick quotes from research and commentary by Lee and O’Brien (1995).³ The following passages are quoted:

“Lee and O’Brien (1995) consider that the Children Act in England provides the framework for responding to children and young people involved in prostitution:

The Children Act provides for the development of services for children and young people in need and many young people involved in prostitution will have a series of needs that are not being met. The Act also provides for interagency work on child protection and emergency intervention when the welfare of a child is at risk (Lee and O’Brien, 1995, p21).

However, they stress that the law “whilst recognising the need to protect young people from sexual abuse and exploitation, also allows for children as young as ten to be prosecuted for offences relating to that abuse” (Lee and O’Brien, 1995, p31) and “the police are increasingly using the criminal justice system to respond to younger women on the street and involved in prostitution” (Lee and O’Brien, 1995, p47). They conclude that:

If more consideration is to be given to the welfare of young people and less use made of the criminal justice system for dealing with young people involved in prostitution, it is essential that the police service places more emphasis on its obligations and powers under the Children Act and less on its ability to caution and arrest young people (Lee and O’Brien, 1995, p35).

The National Committee of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse also stressed that the emphasis of criminal proceedings should be placed “on the identification and prosecution of clients and pimps who exploit children through prostitution” (Williams of Mostyn, 1996, p47).

12. Having reviewed relevant literature, including that quoted, for the purposes of Kent’s report, Kendrick would be expected to have been alive to any Scottish publicly available material which was relevant to the anxious matters described and commented upon by Lee and O’Brien and by Williams of Mostyn.⁴ Yet there is no mention in Kendrick’s Literature Review of any of the detail in Scotland’s (then, and still) most recent and relevant official perspective on prostitution and exploitation of young people from the care system in the report by William Nimmo Smith, QC, and JD Friel in 1993.⁵ The omission appears to require explanation. Did he forget about this report? Was he told not to include it? Did he consider it and think it not to be relevant? These questions require to be investigated by the SCAI. Kendrick even included certain newspaper articles in his Literature Review. Had Nimmo Smith’s report been included in Kendrick’s Literature Review, it may be that Kent’s report would have identified the existence and operation of Crown Office circulars 2025 and 2025/1. As detailed below, the polices detailed in these documents appear to have operated in precisely the opposite direction to that thought necessary by Williams of Mostyn. In any event, Kent would require to be taken as having been well aware of the Nimmo Smith Report.
13. It is worth pausing to note that the SCAI is vulnerable to precisely the same criticism to date.
14. An alternative (and probably more appropriate) term for the prostitution of children in care is “child trafficking”. It may be thought that this does not happen in Scotland. One former resident of the residential care system, Vicki Von Blackwood, insists that it does indeed happen, and on a very significant scale.⁶ Her comments may or may not be wholly accurate, but necessitate thorough and anxious investigation. There is additional material available elsewhere in relation to the trafficking of children in care.⁷ Thorough investigations should be carried out with or without applications to the SCAI, standing the insidious nature of the problem, and the systematic criminalisation of the victims. The paragraphs below refer to real examples of, what amounts to, and should be investigated and identified as, child trafficking from residential care in Scotland.
15. Kent’s failure to consider Nimmo Smith Report – Kent’s summary of the issue of prostitution of children in care was published about 4 years after a much more graphic exploration of some of the important issues had been published in Scotland. Yet Kent appears to have taken no account whatsoever of the Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland, dated 26 January 1993 (“the Nimmo Smith Report”).⁸ One available source of direct evidence as to why this might have been is Professor Kendrick.
16. Even on a superficial perusal of the Nimmo Smith Report, some central facts and background about the inquiry immediately alert the reader to the organised exploitation of a child, M, from a care home, by a group of men. M was drugged and raped. He was kidnapped for 10 days. This is a crystal clear, proved beyond reasonable doubt, example of child trafficking in Scotland. There are broader issues referred to throughout the report concerning the exploitation of “rent boys”. The exploitation of rent boys is also highly likely to be what amounts to child trafficking. It includes the exploitation of young people from residential care. How could this publicly available report have been missed by Kent? Why was it not included in his report’s literature review, compiled by Andrew Kendrick? Surely it ought to have been the starting point for a determined effort to identify and stamp out the abuse of children in care through prostitution and child trafficking?
17. Comparison of Kent with Rotherham Report approach – The naivety of Kent’s summary might be best demonstrated by comparing it to the earliest part of the Executive Summary of the Rotherham Report:-

“No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day. In May 2014, the caseload of the specialist child sexual exploitation team was 51. More CSE cases were held by other children’s social care teams. There were 16 looked after children who were identified by children’s social care as being at serious risk of sexual exploitation or having been sexually exploited. In 2013, the Police received 157 reports concerning child sexual exploitation in the Borough.

Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham. This came from those working in residential care and from youth workers who knew the young people well.

Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. The first of these reports was effectively suppressed because some senior officers disbelieved the data it contained. This had led to suggestions of coverup. The other two reports set out the links between child sexual exploitation and drugs, guns and criminality in the Borough. These reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.

In the early 2000s, a small group of professionals from key agencies met and monitored large numbers of children known to be involved in CSE or at risk but their managers gave little help or support to their efforts. Some at a senior level in the Police and children’s social care continued to think the extent of the problem, as described by youth workers, was exaggerated, and seemed intent on reducing the official numbers of children categorised as CSE. At an operational level, staff appeared to be overwhelmed by the numbers involved. There were improvements in the response of management from about 2007 onwards. By 2009, the children’s social care service was acutely understaffed and over stretched, struggling to cope with demand.”⁹

18. It is delusional to think that such problems do not occur in Scotland. The Nimmo Smith Report, among other materials, informs that such problems do occur in Scotland. The numbers and even the scale of the problems might be different. There has been virtually no work done (that I am aware of) to gather and assess meaningful data in relation to prostitution, or trafficking, of girls and young women in care in Scotland, that I have been able to find thus far. The Nimmo Smith Report was commissioned for purposes other than to identify children and young people in the care system who were at risk. Yet, by investigating in the correct places, the reporters discovered some clearly relevant, and some potentially relevant, material of the very most concerning nature. A similar operation has not been embarked upon, for any purposes, in relation to girls. Yet the Rotherham experience ought to inform that the problem is likely to be much more prevalent for girls in care than for boys. Vicki Von Blackwood asserts that she has details of Scottish cases of child trafficking by prostitution.¹⁰ The SCAI should be anxious to investigate.
19. The Rotherham report has this to say on the matter of sexual abuse of children in that area (not just children in care, of course):-

“Gender

4.16 Generally, there has been relatively low reporting of sexual exploitation of young males, with the exception of the police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men. Over the years, this was identified at inter-agency meetings and in CSE plans as an issue that required attention in Rotherham. That continues to be the case today.

4.17 Six of the CSE team’s caseload at May 2014 were male, and 45 female.

4.18 We read the files of ten boys who were groomed and abused by the lone male prosecuted and sentenced in 2007, and a further seven files of boys/young men who were his alleged victims. Following the trial, children’s social care considered only two of the ten victims to meet the threshold for social care, although many had been raped and at least one was suspected of being involved in abusing other child victims. So far as we could ascertain from the files, none of these children was referred to Risky Business, and only one was referred for specialist counselling, where there was a long waiting list. One of the children who failed to meet the threshold for social care went on to become a serious sex offender, convicted of the abduction and rape of young girls.

4.19 The Inquiry team did a detailed analysis of four cases involving young boys. We reviewed one young teenager with the specialist team from the National Working Group Network. Several issues emerged from the latter case, including:

a) the importance of making sure that judgments about child sexual exploitation are consistent and gender neutral, for example by asking if the same level of risk would be acceptable if the child was the opposite gender;

b) Supporting children to explore their sexuality in safe ways, including building links and referral pathways to local LGBT projects that could provide appropriate information and advice; and

c) Understanding the extreme danger children could put themselves in when they made contact with predatory adults because they did not know where else to find out about their sexuality. This needed to be better reflected in risk assessments.”¹¹

20. It appears that girls who have been sexually abused more often require medical attention, because of pregnancy, than boys who have been sexually abused. Girls therefore more often report sexual abuse than boys. This partly explains why the number of boys who report sexual abuse is lower than the number of girls, according to the analysis in the Rotherham report.

Trafficking of boys in care in Scotland

21. I am aware, from my own directly relevant experience in residential social work, that the sexual exploitation of young people in care has been (over decades) a significant problem in Scotland. It may still be a significant problem. It has never been properly identified. It cannot be rectified without identification. My knowledge of, and concern about, the issue was initially acquired during the one-year period (Sep 1990-Oct 1991) that I worked on day shift at Wellington School, Penicuik, with boys on residential and day attendance orders made as a condition in supervision requirements by the Children’s Hearing (under s44(1)(a) and (b) Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968).
22. Some boys were known by the school and the authorities to associate at weekends and in their time out of school with people who exploited them. There were concerns about drugs being supplied and about possible sexual exploitation. This is a very common problem for young people in the care system, as other inquiries elsewhere, and research, have shown. The area around Loanhead, Midlothian, was said by staff, pupils and their families (living in the community) to be notorious for such exploitation. The person named as being a prominent figure in the group who allegedly exploited these children was called John “Sticky” Wilson.
23. Wilson has a well-documented history of exploiting teenage, and even younger, boys.¹² There is material indicating that Dr Sarah Nelson, researcher at Edinburgh University, has conducted research and is in possession of detailed contended factual knowledge of these matters.¹³ The SCAI has already consulted with Sarah Nelson. She has already been identified as a professional with potentially relevant knowledge falling within the SCAI’s Terms of Reference (“TORs”). No doubt, Sarah Nelson will be keen to contribute her knowledge and research about this important matter. There may be issues about confidentiality. I would certainly hope that the SCAI has already asked Dr Nelson about her research and views on these matters.
24. The Scottish Government funded research facility at Strathclyde University, CELCIS, has carried out a large number of research projects relating to children in the care system in Scotland. None of the CELCIS research that I have identified appears to be focused upon the issue of the exploitation of young people in care through prostitution and child trafficking. This is very unfortunate, not least because Prof Andrew Kendrick, Director of CELCIS, compiled the literature review in Roger Kent’s report. He must have been aware of the problem and the absence of data to assess and remedy it. CELCIS ought to be fully aware of the literature from elsewhere on the issue; of Kent’s identification of the problem in the Scottish care system; and of the need to measure and record data relating to the problem with a view to amelioration of it. This might be one area that the SCAI could specifically request research to be carried out by CELCIS or, perhaps more appropriately, other academics elsewhere.
25. Sexual exploitation, through prostitution and child trafficking, of children and young people in care (up to age 18) is an issue that is self-evidently at the very most serious and worrying end of the spectrum of child abuse that this Inquiry ought to be dealing with, insofar as relevant to the TORs. The most relevant TOR in relation to this problem appears to be No.6. Apart from the obvious child welfare issues the problem raises, it also requires focus upon the persons exploiting the young people involved.¹⁴ There is a dual necessity to identify and remedy the problem for both purposes.
26. I therefore began to look for, and examine, historical and publicly available material relevant to the Inquiry’s consideration of this crucially important matter.
27. Nimmo Smith Report 1993

The Report of the Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland (“the Nimmo Smith Report”) was printed on 26 January 1993 for the then Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger. Its authors were William Nimmo Smith, QC (as he then was) and JD Friel, Regional PF of North Strathclyde. There were various sensational aspects to this investigation, and the events which resulted in the Inquiry being commissioned. Much of the intrigue and sensation is self-evidently not relevant to the SCAI. 

28. The major part of the report is taken up with addressing the issue of homosexuality in the judiciary and legal establishment. In present times, the taboos and prejudices around homosexuality are completely unacceptable and there is absolutely no proper place in modern society for acceptance of such attitudes.
29. The underlying concern which necessitated the inquiry was whether the interests of justice had been, were being, or were likely to be, compromised by an alleged secret network of gay lawyers, judges and people who may have been in a position to blackmail them to make favourable decisions and thus compromise their independence and the integrity of the whole justice system. The legitimate systemic concerns were compounded, but confused it seems, because of a lack of openness and honesty on the part of the homosexual men involved since their involvement in homosexual relations, per se, was viewed as professionally unacceptable and criminal as a matter of law. Attitudes today would undoubtedly be quite different if such an inquiry was to take place.
30. The issue for present consideration by the SCAI is not concerned at all with consensual homosexual relations: but it is concerned with any relations, whether “consensual” or not, between adults and children in care.
31. However, there is a striking and very concerning aspect of the material in the report, for present purposes. The concern is that there appears to be little or no active consideration given to the need to protect children in the care system who are at risk of exploitation through prostitution. In fact, the accepted views and policies highlighted in the report point to a contrary prevalent attitude which appears to have clearly fostered and encouraged exploitation of young people in care through prostitution. On a critical reading of the report, it appears to intentionally ignore blatant child trafficking.
32. In present times, this might even be viewed as a failure in public duty, at virtually all levels in the Scottish legal system, at the times of the events or since then, to report child trafficking concerns to the responsible authorities. The immediately obvious comparison to be drawn is with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in different countries. Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and others have rightly been condemned for their failure to report known concerns and suspicions about the sexual abuse of children by clergy.
33. It is known that young people in care, particularly teenagers, are at high risk of being drawn into prostitution for a number of reasons.¹⁵ This has been proved conclusively elsewhere. Roger Kent highlighted it as a matter of great concern. Yet very little indeed exists to demonstrate that the problem has ever been identified, quantified and rectified in Scotland. The research that has been conducted appears to have been largely ignored and certainly not followed up.¹⁶ The problem of trafficking of children in the care system has been largely ignored, it appears.
34. The problem of trafficking of children in the care system through prostitution appears to have been ignored, as a genus of child abuse in Scotland which is worthy of thorough investigation, by the SCAI to date. Standing the terms of the Nimmo Smith Report, this fact in itself would be concerning in the public perception.
35. The prevalent attitude in Scotland, reflected in the Nimmo Smith Report, appears to have been that, in circumstances where young men in the care system may have been involved in the matters relevant to the Report, as long as there was either “consent” or money changing hands, i.e. prostitution, that was somehow seen as acceptable; or, at least, not a matter that required further welfare focused investigation in the interests of the young people involved. Such an attitude is the opposite of what is required from a welfare perspective.¹⁷
36. Yet, applying modern analysis, the rent boy scenario appears to involve child trafficking of young people in care. In fact, a Crown Office policy was developed and implemented which appears to undermine, and ignore, the welfare of a component of young men in care between the ages of 16 and 18. To express matters in another way, a Crown Office policy appears to enable, facilitate and exculpate the perpetrators of child trafficking. I return to this issue below.
37. A re-reading of the Nimmo Smith Report makes clear that one of the central characters was Robert Henderson, QC. Henderson’s conduct, as narrated and referred to in the report, is remarkable and deplorable. There are numerous occasions on which Henderson is reported to have made dramatic assertions of fact. Later on, after others have been asked about the same matters, he is reported to have readily conceded that he must have mis-remembered, or that he must have been mistaken. The inability of others to whom the reporters spoke to remember important details and conversations is also striking. It is also striking that Henderson was closely connected to those with power and influence. Though deceased and with serious allegations of child abuse having been made about him, his connections appear to endure. This has been noteworthy in relatively recent years in public expressions in support of Henderson’s good character by, for example, Lord McCluskey. Lord McCluskey has made public statements in support of Henderson’s “good character” at the time of Henderson’s death in and in response to reports of allegations of child sexual abuse made by Henderson’s daughter. The latter intervention can only be viewed as wholly inappropriate. The public perception of this sort of support is likely to be adverse.
38. Henderson’s name has been mentioned in the media more recently in contexts which appear to fall outwith this Inquiry’s terms of reference. However, it should be noted that his daughter, Susie Henderson, has alleged consistently over a number of years that she was sexually abused by Henderson and his friends when she was a child. She has alleged that she was sexually abused by Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, now deceased, but a member of the Faculty of Advocates and Solicitor General for Scotland. Whether or not the police and prosecuting authorities have identified a sufficiency of evidence is not the issue in the public perception. These allegations demand to be taken seriously, as do all others.
39. It is understood that, more recently, Lord Hardie has been interviewed (possibly under caution) by police in relation to allegations made by Susie Henderson. This is obviously a matter of public interest and concern. While it does not appear to fall within the TORs of this Inquiry, it appears to be a matter that the SCAI has a duty to ensure is properly investigated by criminal and judicial authorities. Allegations made require to be taken seriously. No particular note, and certainly no publicly expressed note, appears to have been taken that allegations have been made at all. This would be a matter of the gravest public concern, from the perspective of public perception. It is understood that the Scottish Government is fully aware of the fact that allegations have been made by Susie Henderson in respect of Lord Hardie’s alleged conduct towards her when she was a child.

HMA v Neil Bruce Duncan and 9 others

40. Chapter 16: Chapter 16 of the Nimmo Smith Report addresses a matter that is immediately and obviously relevant to the SCAI’s TORs. Paras 16.1 and following detail circumstances about the investigation by police and the conduct of a High Court prosecution in which it is clear that a 16 year-old boy (referred to as “M”) was sexually and otherwise abused, and passed around, by a number of men. This is the clearest record of trafficking of a child in care. The report narrates that M was resident in a care home. The abuse of M, and the perpetrators of that abuse, whether or not they were convicted of offences at the time (ie even if they were acquitted), require to be investigated by the SCAI.
41. The case of M is therefore detailed in a publicly available report. This ought to have been investigated by the SCAI already. Failure to have done so may call for an explanation, in the public perception.
42. Para 16. 1 of the report sets out:-

“16.1 The investigation which led to the prosecution of Neil Bruce Duncan and nine other accused began on 24 January 1990 when police officers found a 16 year old boy, who was named in the indictment but whom we shall call M, in a room occupied by Duncan at 37 Palmerston Place, Edinburgh. The police gave the investigation the code-name “Operation Planet”. On 14 January 1990 M had been on weekend leave from a children’s home and was returning there by bus when Duncan struck up a conversation with him and persuaded him to go with him to Edinburgh. Between then and 24 January Duncan systematically debauched M. He also made it possible for other men to participate in the debauchery by taking him to various houses in Edinburgh. The offences thus committed are best explained by reference to the charges in the indictment to which Duncan and his co-accused Laurie Kenyon Valdemar Pringle, John Stevenson, and Ian Alexander James Ewing pled guilty.”

43. The reporters’ summary makes it clear that this is a factual matter of the utmost gravity from SCAI’s perspective. It is certain fact for the SCAI which has been investigated, prosecuted (to some extent) and reconsidered (albeit for different purposes) in a publicly available report commissioned by the Lord Advocate. There is no reason, and no excuse available, for the SCAI to decline to consider this. Para 16.1 describes a situation in which a child in the care of the state is “diverted” from returning to a residential care establishment. Notwithstanding the child’s status (as being legally required to reside in a children’s home), he is then “kidnapped”, or trafficked, and abused by various men (including a solicitor) for a period of some 10 days. The locations at which he was abused appear to be known to the reporters.
44. Surely this is one of the most serious cases requiring the SCAI’s thorough investigation and consideration? How could this happen in 1990; how can it form the subject matter of a public report and STILL not have been explored from the perspective of M’s (and all other children in care) welfare? Yet, even though it may be hard to believe, that appears to be the truth of this particular case. This publicly known and investigated case of child trafficking has apparently been ignored from the perspective of child welfare concerns. Prima facie, that may point to failures in various systems, including the legal system at the very highest level.
45. There are several unanswered questions arising for the SCAI’s investigation and consideration from the reporters’ summary in para 16.1 of the Nimmo Smith Report. What children’s home was M placed in? What procedures were operated there that meant that M was missing for 10 days, with his life clearly at risk? Was M reported to the police as a missing person by social work staff? What night care cover was in place at the children’s home for the protection of M and other children? Was the Lothian Region Social Work Emergency Duty Team notified that M was missing? If so, what steps did they take? Were there any attempts made to find M during the period between 14 and 24 January 1990? What school (if any) did M attend? Did M’s school (or if not school, work / apprenticeship) notice M was missing during the period between 14 and 24 January 1990? What was done by them to identify M’s whereabouts and address his wellbeing? Were all other children in care in Scotland exposed to the danger of going missing for 10 days and being serially sexually abused? Why has this case never been properly identified and investigated as a case of the trafficking of a child in care?
46. It is obvious that the absence of a coherent set of procedures (at residential unit, city, regional and national levels) to deal with the situation in which a child in care, such as M, went missing for a period of 10 days might lead to the conclusion that those systems were dangerously defective in 1990, and possibly for a long time thereafter. Such a situation would obviously have put children such as M, and all others in the care system, at great risk for their lives, their safety and their well-being.

But it is not just the procedures in the care system that require to be considered here. Crown Office procedures, the practice of lawyers and the operation of judges and the courts all feature. The failure to identify the problem and call it what it is – child trafficking – and to investigate and report from a welfare perspective appears as endemic as it is damning.

47. In proper, objective context, the documented case of M ought to be be viewed as an appropriate starting point from which to commence a comprehensive and definitive chapter for the SCAI on the gaps in the care system, and in other systems such as the prosecution, legal and court systems, that allowed (and perhaps still allows) children in care to be exploited, endangered and trafficked through prostitution. Indeed, relevant and applicable Crown Office policy (in circulars 2025 and 2025/1, referred to below) appears to have facilitated abusers’ actions and colluded in keeping things quiet where abuse through prostitution (trafficking) of young people in care was found to have happened. Suspected examples, additional to the case of M, are detailed below.
48. M’s case is all the more concerning because it appears to have escaped the notice of Roger Kent and later reporters, researchers and commentators. Indeed, it appears to have escaped the notice of the SCAI over a period of in excess of 3 years. This appears to be the case even though the vast majority of judges, advocates (especially the Chair and Senior Counsel to the SCAI), solicitors, police officers, civil servants and others are, and ought to be, entirely familiar with the publication and general circumstances of the Nimmo Smith Report.
49. It should be possible for the SCAI to begin by identifying M and the 10 accused, as well as the details libelled in the Indictment. This will be a starting point for further investigations. It should also be possible to identify the then addresses of the accused by their domicile of citations. It may also be possible to identify the residential unit from which M was on weekend leave. A possible source of information is Lord Nimmo Smith. There are other obvious sources such as Lord Pentland, Solicitor General during the mid- 1990’s, slightly later on. Crown Office. National records. Lord Hope, Lord President at the time. Lord Matthews (as an AD) apparently drafted the 57 charges on the Indictment in the case involving M. Derek Ogg, QC, was counsel for one of the accused. Sheriff Kevin Drummond, QC, and Neil Murray, QC, were counsel for two other of the accused. Other sheriffs and judges were involved in decision making for their respective professional roles in Crown Office and elsewhere. The names of those interviewed are set out in the Nimmo Smith Report. Questions may be asked about who knew what; and, indeed, why no one appears to have reported concerns about the trafficking of children in care to the SCAI, or elsewhere.

The charges in relation to crimes against M

50. Para 16.2 of the Nimmo Smith report details:-

“16.2 Charge 40 libelled that on 14 January 1990 Duncan approached M on the bus and induced him to travel with him to Edinburgh with the intention that he take part in homosexual acts, within the meaning of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, with other male persons and did thus attempt to procure the commission of homosexual acts between M and other male persons, contrary to section 80(9) of the Act. Charge 41 libelled that on the same date in a cemetery in Edinburgh Duncan conducted himself in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M and sodomised him. Charge 42 libelled that between 21 and 24 January 1990 Duncan knowingly harboured and concealed M, who was required by a supervision requirement to reside in the children’s home and had failed to return there at the end of a period of leave, contrary to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, section 71. Charge 44 libelled that on various occasions between 14 and 24 January 1990 in the house at 37 Palmerston Place, Duncan conducted himself in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M and sodomised him. Charge 47 libelled that on various occasions between 14 and 24 January 1990 Duncan supplied cannabis resin to M contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 4(3)(a). Charge 50 libelled that on various occasions between 14 and 24 January 1990 in a house in Edinburgh Duncan and Ewing conducted themselves in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M. Charge 51 libelled that on an occasion between 14 and 24 January 1990 in another house in Edinburgh Duncan and another conducted themselves in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M and sodomised him. While Duncan pled guilty to this charge, the other person named in it, John Keir, pled not guilty and after a trial the jury found the charge not proven against him. Charge 52 libelled that on 23 January 1990 in yet another house in Edinburgh Duncan and Pringle conducted themselves in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M.

Charge 53 libelled that on an occasion between 14 and 24 January 1990 Duncan and Stevenson conducted themselves in a shamelessly indecent manner towards M. Charge 54 libelled that on 25 January 1990 Duncan had in his possession cannabis and cannabis resin, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 5(2).”

51. It will be noted that it only appears to be charges 40 to 53 (perhaps) that related to abuse of M. However, no summary or reference is made in respect of various of the charges libelled between charges 40 and 53. It is unknown what other charges were libelled on the Indictment in respect of other complainers. There must have been other complainers who were prepared to give evidence. Were the other complainers, or any of them, children or young people in care? Or had they previously been children in care who had been abused by any of the accused at the time they were supposed to be in care? These are not merely speculative questions. There appears to be a clear obligation to establish whether these were circumstances amounting to trafficking of children in care.
52. As the Nimmo Smith Report makes clear, the apparent reason that the 47 charges relating to these other complainers were “dropped” was that they arose from situations involving rent boys. In other words, the Crown accepted not guilty pleas, and the court acceded to motions to acquit, on one view, BECAUSE the cases involved child trafficking. The view was taken that there was consensual activity between the complainers and the accused. However, that view may be open to question. The extent of the real consent is likely to have been consent to payment. The circumstances appear to point to exploitation through prostitution. This may be trafficking of children in care.
53. Para 16.3 records:- “16.3 The above summary takes account of various deletions which were made from the charges when the pleas of guilty were accepted by the Crown. We have omitted the specification of the sexual acts which was set out in the charges. The Crown accepted pleas of not guilty to all the other charges in the indictment. In the result therefore a number of the accused were acquitted, while pleas of not guilty to various charges were accepted from all the accused who pled guilty to the charges referred to above. In the discussion which follows we think it appropriate, therefore, to refer only in the most general terms to the evidence which led to the inclusion of these charges in the indictment in the first place.”
54. It is plain from para 16.3 that that authors of the Nimmo Smith report were (obviously) only concerned with matters that fell within the proper scope of their inquiry. However, the deletions referred to and the detail of the libels in respect of which not guilty pleas were accepted by the Crown may well be relevant for consideration by the SCAI. The deletions for guilty pleas are likely to be aggravations which made the charges in respect of M more serious. This is normal when a view is taken by an AD that a plea to a reduced charge will be accepted. The SCAI requires to know what the more serious matters related to. The report gives a detailed account of the care with which this prosecution was put together. Lord Matthews framed the 57 charges on the Indictment, having reviewed the available evidence. As an AD, he obviously took the view that there was a sufficiency of evidence in respect of all 57 charges. Most of those involved in Crown Office are still alive and available to be asked. They are named in the Report and easily identifiable.
55. Convictions on some charges were secured, after trial, in relation to M. Some resulted from guilty pleas. Of 57 charges on the Indictment, 47 appear to have had not guilty pleas accepted by the Crown at the trial diet. Aside from the involvement of M, for present purposes, paras 16.3-16.5 make clear that the substance of the 47 “dropped” charges relates to activities involving a “network” of relationships between young men under the age of 21, but older than M, and older men. This detail is insufficient to decide whether there were complainers between the ages of 16 and 18 (or even older) who had been resident in care at the time of the offences libelled (or, perhaps, at the time of other additional offences). It appears that the detail of those matters was not pursued by the report authors because the young men involved were properly to be regarded as “rent boys” – in other words, money was exchanged, usually between the young men and older men, for sexual activity. This was viewed as consensual. It was unlikely to have been consensual. It was more likely to have been exploitative. Child trafficking. The issue of whether any of the rent boys involved (aged between 16 and 18) were young men who lived (or had lived at material times) in residential care remains unaddressed. This matter is an important one should be investigated by the SCAI.
56. It is not made clear by the Nimmo Smith Report whether the prevalent attitude which formed the rationale for the Ad Hoc AD to “drop” 47 of 57 charges on the Indictment in the case formed the basis, or was the result of, of a new Crown Office policy for consideration of matters in similar circumstances. However, given that the approach appears to be the same, it seems likely. The Crown Office policy is a matter which is discussed elsewhere in the Nimmo Smith Report.
57. It should be noted that the decision by the Ad Hoc AD, Thomas Dawson, QC, to accept 47 not guilty pleas must be investigated by the SCAI in order to address the issues already identified. The consequence is that the court’s acceptance of those not guilty pleas also requires to be investigated and considered. The Nimmo Smith Report details that there was concern among senior Edinburgh PFs and Crown Office officials about the exercise of the Ad Hoc AD’s discretion and about his failure to discuss and/or advise those responsible for preparing the case. There was even greater concern, apparently vocally expressed, by the police officers who had investigated the case.
58. It appears clear that the considerations in the AD’s mind related to whether or not what was viewed as “consensual” homosexual behaviour should be prosecuted in the public interest. Clearly, for the purposes of the SCAI’s TORs, such consensual behaviour is only relevant if it was participated in together with a “child” who was resident in the care system at material times (including young men aged 16-18 who were paid for sexual acts). It is important to have regard to the different definition of “child” for the respective purposes. In the Nimmo Smith Report, and for the purposes of prosecution policy in 1990, a child was a person under the age of 16. The definition for the SCAI’s purposes is materially different. This will be an important matter in considering of this chapter of evidence. It means that, even if decisions were taken for proper reasons at the time, those reasons may not bear scrutiny in present context.

Crown Office Policy in circulars 2025 and 2025/1

59. The Nimmo Smith Report makes reference to Crown Office policy and the publication of Crown Office circulars, some of which specified how the prosecution service intended to process and make decisions about particular categories of complaints and investigations.
60. An important summary of Crown Office policy in relation to the prosecution of homosexual offences is detailed at chapter 3 of the Report. The following is an excerpt:-

“3.3 We are aware that, as we shall discuss more fully when we come to that case, counsel for some of the accused in the case of Duncan and Others proposed to argue that apart from the provisions of the 1980 Act and apart from the common law crime of sodomy no crime is committed when males over the age of 16 years engage in homosexual activity. That is not an argument which has been tested in court and we prefer to proceed on the basis that the law is as stated in the preceding paragraph.

3.4 In the case of Duncan and Others most of the charges proceeded on the basis of common law, although some were based on the 1980 Act. In the period after that case was disposed of in January 1991 there was some public concern about the appropriateness of basing charges on the common law rather than the statute. In particular, Derek Ogg, Advocate, who had acted as counsel for one of the accused, made comments to that effect which were quoted in an article published in “The Glasgow Herald” on 20 February 1991. At about the end of March 1991 Elish McPhilomy, Senior Legal Assistant at the Crown Office, was asked to prepare a background paper on the prosecution of consensual homosexual offences. Her paper concluded that if a policy direction was considered to be appropriate and necessary with regard to homosexual offences, some consideration might be given to the following aspects:

(1) The minimum age for homosexual relations.

(2) The need for preventive prosecution directed at the male trade in prostitution with use of section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

(3) The restriction of prosecution of the client or older man to those situations demonstrating in particular a clear breach of trust, or the overcoming of will by drugs, threats etc.

(4) The treatment of homosexual and heterosexual acts of indecency on an equivalent basis.

(5) The use of statutory provisions rather than common law charges wherever possible.

3.5 This background paper was discussed at a meeting held on 29 April 1991 attended by, among others, Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate, Alan Rodger, the Solicitor General, Duncan Lowe, the Crown Agent, and Alfred Vannet, the Deputy Crown Agent. In the course of the discussion the Lord Advocate suggested the writing of a letter to the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland. In due course a letter dated 1 July 1991 was written by the Crown Agent to Sir William Sutherland, Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, as Honorary Secretary of ACPOS. This letter stated that the Lord Advocate wished to ensure that prosecution policy in relation to homosexual offences was based on a careful analysis of where the public interest lay and that there was a clear understanding of the type of conduct requiring the imposition of a criminal sanction. It continued:

“It will clearly be necessary for police reporting practice to reflect that policy and Chief Constables will no doubt wish to consider a consistent enforcement approach.”

It concluded by stating that the Lord Advocate was currently reconsidering elements of prosecution policy in this area.

“It is of importance that this exercise takes into account any special features of police policy and practice which you regard as pertinent to this issue and the Lord Advocate would be pleased to consider the views of the Association before finalising his instructions in the matter.”

Sir William replied by letter dated 30 August 1991 referring to guidelines which had been issued by a previous Lord Advocate on 1 February 1981 and discouraging any change in existing prosecution practice. The letter also suggested that a “careful analysis of where the public interest lies” was a matter for Parliament.

3.6 Consideration was given to the views of ACPOS as well as those of other persons who had communicated with the Lord Advocate. There was also press coverage of the matter. In due course Crown Office Circular No. 2025 dated 28 November 1991 was issued to Procurators Fiscal. This circular stated that the Lord Advocate considered that the public interest was not served by routinely prosecuting all persons who participated in those consensual homosexual acts which remain unlawful. It then set out guidelines which included the following:

“Where both of the participants are over 16 years but one or both are under 21 years and the act has taken place in private and where there are no circumstances pointing to exploitation, corruption, or breach of trust, prosecution would not be appropriate.”

3.7 The terms of the circular became public and extensive publicity and correspondence with the Lord Advocate ensued. The Lord Advocate apparently took the view that there was public misapprehension about the significance of the review which he had undertaken, which was fuelled by speculation that he intended to effect a unilateral change in the law on the age of consent; that was not his intention, as such a change in the law would be a matter for Parliament. The circular was, however, reconsidered and on 20 December 1991 a new Crown Office Circular No. 2025/1 was issued to Procurators Fiscal. This circular made reference to the continuing review, and set out new, provisional directions by the Lord Advocate which replaced the directions contained in the previous circular. These directions included:

“1. Where both of the participants are over 18 years but one or both are under 21 years and the act has taken place in private and where there are circumstances pointing to exploitation, corruption, or breach of trust, prosecution would be appropriate. Where the Procurator Fiscal receives a report involving individuals in this age group and none of these circumstances is present, but the Procurator Fiscal considers there are other circumstances which would justify proceedings, a report should be made to Crown Office for consideration by Crown Counsel.

2. Where both of the participants are over 16 years but one or both are under 18 years and the act appears to have been consensual and in private, the Procurator Fiscal should report the case to Crown Office for consideration by Crown Counsel.

4. Where it appears that one of the parties has engaged in homosexual acts before the occasion under consideration and has acted as a prostitute, there is little justification in pursuing the client of such an individual, while ignoring his activity as a prostitute…. “

We understand that the review continues, and meantime the circular of 20 December 1991 sets out the Lord Advocate’s current directions.”

61. These paragraphs from the Nimmo Smith Report raise very serious issues of relevance and concern from the perspective of the SCAI’s TORs. It will be immediately noticed that the report contains excerpts only from the Crown Office circulars. It does not detail, for example, the content of para 3 taken from the last quoted circular. The detail contained in the actual circulars will require to be checked and established. The detail and conclusion of the Lord Advocate’s continued review will also require to be established and considered.
62. Para 4 of circular 2025/1, dated 20 December 1991, appears to be of particular concern from the perspective of the SCAI’s TORs. This appears to detail and record that the Crown Office policy in relation to rent boy activity, i.e. prostitution, from at least 20 December 1991 (but most likely beforehand, and most likely the rationale for the 47 “dropped” charges in the case of Duncan and others), was not to prosecute either the client (typically the older man) or the rent boy. No minimum age is specified. No particular or special consideration is given to circumstances in which the rent boy may be a child aged 16-18 (or younger) and in care. In this particular respect, the policy appears to facilitate the trafficking of children in care by older men. In this particular respect, the policy may have been formulated and implemented in error of judgment and responsibility in the public interest.
63. This Crown Office policy therefore appears to place at risk and in clear danger of exploitation young men in care aged between 16 and 18. In circumstances in which rent boys who were in care were being exploited by older men who could pay for the opportunity to exploit, Crown Office would turn a blind eye, it appears. It would not be seen as in the public interest to prosecute either participant. It would not be in the public interest, therefore, to recognise legitimate issues about the exploitation of children in care if they were acting as rent boys in these circumstances. The view appears to have been taken that there was no public interest in prosecuting the client who may be exploiting the rent boy who, in turn, may be a child in care.
64. There is an obvious contrast to be made with the view expressed by Williams of Mostyn in 1996:

“The National Committee of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse also stressed that the emphasis of criminal proceedings should be placed “on the identification and prosecution of clients and pimps who exploit children through prostitution” (Williams of Mostyn, 1996, p47).”¹⁸

65. This Crown Office policy ought to be a matter of the greatest concern from the perspective of the SCAI. The SCAI needs to establish its terms and manifestations (circulars 2025 and 2025/1); how it was operated; in which cases it was operated; and for how long did it remain Crown Office policy. Examples of real cases, in addition to M’s case, referred to below, give great cause for concern over a significant period of time. It is of great concern that it is unclear for how long this policy was followed by Crown Office.

Other cases arising from HMA v Duncan and others and Crown Office policy

66. Another important fact to be taken from the case of M, as detailed in the Nimmo Smith Report, is the locus of the offences detailed as having occurred at 37 Palmerston Place, Edinburgh. It is very well documented that the property at 37 Palmerston Place Edinburgh was owned, at material times, by Tam Paton, one-time manager of the Bay City Rollers, who died in 2009. Paton is not mentioned in the Nimmo Smith Report at all. He does not appear to have been interviewed. However, the omission of any reference to the property as having been owned by Paton may be viewed as curious. It cannot have escaped the notice of the reporters that Paton was the owner of the property. They must have considered whether he was involved, standing his record at the time. If they did consider this, it ought to have been detailed in the report they produced. 37 Palmerston Place, Edinburgh, was a known locus for child trafficking.
67. Paton has been the subject of a lot of press coverage and other written material. It is alleged that he exploited children in care in Nazareth House, Lasswade (with Jimmy Saville); and children from Ponton House Children’s Home, Edinburgh.¹⁹ The SCAI has already investigated abuse of children in care at Nazareth House, Lasswade. It is alleged in one book that a boy who had been in care in Ponton House Children’s Home died when he threw himself off the top of the building at 37 Palmerston Place, Edinburgh.²⁰ The foreword to the book is written by Dr Sarah Nelson of Edinburgh University. Members of the senior SCAI team have already met with Dr Nelson.
68. The detail contained in the Nimmo Smith Report in respect of the case of M clearly links Paton’s property to the exploitation of M, a child in care. It is not possible, without significant further investigations being carried out by the SCAI, to conclude at present that Paton himself was actually implicated in the abuse of children in care. However, there is sufficient concern, on the basis of a diverse range of sources alleging Paton’s involvement, to provide a clear public interest basis for a detailed investigation into Paton’s activities and interests insofar as they relate to the exploitation of children in care in order to establish whether or not he was implicated for the SCAI’s purposes.
69. It appears that the exploitation of children in care happened over a number of years at Paton’s property at 37 Palmerston Place Edinburgh and at Paton’s home at Little Kellerstain, Gogar, Edinburgh. It is incredible that newspaper reports of court proceedings detail facts relating to the abuse of children in or before October 1979. It is incredible because nothing appears to have been successfully done to prevent similar abuse happening to M in 1990. The state of knowledge, practices and procedures in the criminal justice system, the care system, the police, social work, the courts, the children’s hearing and other relevant institutions needs to be investigated. What is presented appears to be a web for the exploitation and trafficking of children, including children in care, which has not been conclusively or thoroughly investigated. This is a matter of considerable concern in the public interest. It is also a matter falling within the SCAI’s TORs, in particular TOR 6. The public interest would demand thorough investigation of these matters by the SCAI.
70. The Glasgow Herald newspaper reported on 9 February 1982 that John Wilson (John “Sticky” Wilson referred to above in relation to boys at Wellington School) of an address in Loanhead, Midlothian, wept in the dock as he was sentenced to four months in custody having pled guilty to four offences of gross indecency against teenage boys, as young as 13, in the home (at Little Kellerstain) of Paton. As part of a plea bargain (accepted by Andrew Hardie, AD), Wilson had undertaken to give evidence against his co-accused, Paton.²¹ This is the same Sticky Wilson referred to above about whom there were concerns about his conduct toward children in care at Wellington School in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
71. There are also subsequent Herald and other press reports that Paton was convicted of serious charges against young boys and was sentenced to 3 years in custody in 1982.²² He was also tried and acquitted of further child sexual abuse charges in about 2003. These are matters that the SCAI ought to investigate further.
72. Dr Sarah Nelson of Edinburgh University is reported in the press to have carried out two separate research projects which disclosed a network of abusers, including Paton, in 2004 with a follow up in 2009. There is a summary of her work, with comment, reported in an article in the Scotsman dated 11 April 2009.²³
73. Part of the Scotsman report’s summary is in the following terms:-

“A GOVERNMENT adviser on sex crimes has claimed Bay City Rollers manager Tam Paton was involved with an abuse ring which claimed dozens of youngsters as victims. Sarah Nelson last night called for a full investigation into the depraved activities of Paton, who last week died of a heart attack at his luxury home near Edinburgh. Nelson, speaking in her capacity as an Edinburgh University researcher, said she had uncovered numerous allegations made against Paton over the years, many of them involving teenage boys who were afraid to go to the police at the time. Paton, who was 70, was convicted in the early 1980s of abusing two boys aged 16 and 17. Last week, Rollers frontman Les McKeown finally broke his silence on the issue, claiming he was raped by Paton. Nelson is now revealing that she came across a raft of allegations as she examined the extent of sex abuse against young men for two key reports, published in 2004 and earlier this year. She told Scotland on Sunday: “I became very concerned in the in the course of both studies, but particularly in 2004, to come across repeated allegations of sexually abusing activities involving Mr Paton and rings of unknown others. I think it is safe to say there are dozens of alleged victims. “They were mainly very vulnerable teenagers, for instance those from a care background who should have been under society’s protection.” They were groups of severely damaged young men, offenders who were now in the criminal justice system, but who had eventually revealed being abused in some kind of network involving Mr Paton.”

74. She added: “The allegations included that extreme fear of the repercussions of reporting kept them silent, along with their fear of entrapment if they spoke out, since they had themselves been inveigled into crime. They would not agree to speak out about the abuse.” Nelson said the allegations included the existence of a network of flats in Edinburgh where vulnerable male teenagers and young men were placed – men who were beholden to Paton – and which were scenes of criminal activities. She said: “There were also allegations that abuse and criminal activities involving boys took place regularly at Mr Paton’s home, which surveillance over a period would surely have revealed.” The claims were reported – usually reluctantly – to various workers, including those in the prison, criminal justice, housing and social work sectors but, Nelson believes, never pursued because the alleged victims did not want to take them further.
75. She said: “Given that my own research report of February 2009 raised some very disquieting issues about apparently continuing risks to boys in care, especially those with a history of residential care and offending, I believe such an inquiry must be instigated in order to protect others and to learn lessons for protecting these boys in future.”
76. Clearly, Dr Nelson envisaged that any Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry which was eventually established would, indeed, investigate the matters she reported upon and made reference to. It appears that, from the content of what she is quoted as having said, and from her clear references to knowledge and research involving the sexual exploitation of children in the care system, there is a powerful need and a clear duty on the part of the SCAI to investigate the matters referred to. These matters appear to relate to trafficking of children in care.
77. Against the background of Dr Nelson’s knowledge of allegations of the abuse of children in care, through prostitution of young men as rent boys, the Crown Office policy, detailed in circular 2025/1, dated 20 December 1991, takes on a much more concerning significance. It appears that there was, or ought to have been, detailed knowledge and concern on the part of the authorities about the activities of Paton and others well in advance of the case of M arising in January 1990.
78. It is very difficult to understand how the known sexual exploitation of young men, some of whom appear to have been in care, could have been regarded as “consensual”; or, worse still, as circumstances in which there was no public interest in prosecuting those exploiting such children because money had changed hands. If this is a reasonable representation of the Crown Office policy and its effect, it appears to represent gross mis-judgment at best.
79. Matters may have been understandably confused by the clear need to ensure that consensual homosexual relationships and actings between adults were not criminalised. This was obviously the primary concern at the time. However, it must be viewed as obviously wrong for the SCAI to ignore the sexual exploitation of rent boys who were in care because money had changed hands (ie because their consent was being paid for). The same attitude was and is unacceptable in respect of young women in care. Such situations must be investigated, identified and properly labelled as child trafficking through prostitution.
80. It is unclear for how long the Crown Office policy detailed in circular 2025/1 remained operative. The fact of its existence, however, means that it may have provided the rationale for disposing of many prospective prosecutions which ought properly to have been prosecuted in the public interest involving trafficking of children as rent boys and, typically, older men.
81. This scenario has been a reported concern in various newspapers and internet blogs over a number of years. A simple google internet search produces detailed reports and allegations. Some are far-fetched and firmly rooted in unfeasible conspiracy theory. Some allegations are repeatedly and consistently made against people in prominent positions. It is right and proper, for the sake of public confidence in the interests of justice, that SCAI should fully and properly investigate matters in which the same Crown Office policy operated where there are factual allegations (not necessarily made by the complainers) and they fall within the TORs.
82. It is a matter of grave concern, in the public interest, when cases involving prominent people and raising issues of possible child trafficking through rent boy exploitation have been reported in the public domain and a perception remains of cover up. In some these cases it is unclear whether or not the rent boy was a child in care. However, this is a matter that the SCAI should be careful to investigate and establish in each and every known case, whether an application is made to the SCAI by the complainer or not. The SCAI should be alive to the danger that the public is left with the perception that any such case has been subject to the policy detailed in Crown Office circular 2025/1. That would be wholly unacceptable. It appears likely, however, to have been the case.
83. It is particularly important for the SCAI’s credibility that cases involving allegations against lawyers are not perceived to have been either ignored, glossed over, or simply not considered worth investigating in accordance with Crown Office circular 2025/1. This is especially important if the public might perceive there to be close personal and/or professional connections between lawyers.

Cases relating to Douglas Haggarty, Head of Legal Services, SLAB

84. On 3 May 2009 it was reported in the press that Douglas Haggarty, aged 57, Head of Legal Services at the Scottish Legal Aid Board, was arrested and charged in connection with offences arising from sexual activity with a teenage rent boy in BHS toilets in the St Enoch Centre, Glasgow.²⁴
85. It is unclear from the report what age the young man was, or whether he was, or had been, in care. The SCAI should be careful to be seen to have thoroughly investigated this case and to act if it is found to fall within the TORs. This is especially important because the press reports from 2009 appear to suggest that Haggarty’s “lawyer”, Paul McBride, QC, was able to persuade the Crown to “drop” its investigation of the case and any intended proceedings.²⁵ This perception, and the identities of the persons involved in the scenario, presents a concerning picture in the public perception. McBride was a board member of SLAB at the time.
86. The concern, in the public perception, is more serious because it appears that this case appears prima facie to have been dealt with in accordance with Crown Office circular 2025/1. The author of the policy and circular was Elish Angiolini (see Nimmo Smith report, para 3.4, reference to Elish McPhilomy, Senior Legal Assistant at Crown Office). By 2009, Ms Angiolini was Lord Advocate. Paul McBride, QC, had been counsel acting for one of the accused in respect of whom not guilty pleas were accepted in the prosecution against Neil Bruce Duncan and others in 1991. Mr McBride’s client in that case was also therefore charged with rent boy offences, it can be inferred. From the perspective of the public perception, and of public confidence, it does appear that the treatment of rent boy cases (involving children in care and children not in care) may have been consistently dealt with between about 1991 and 2009 in accordance with Crown Office circular 2025/1. It is incumbent upon the SCAI, in these circumstances, to investigate and, where within the TORs, to deal with these matters. This is especially important in relation to Crown Office policy.
87. A further concern, in the public perception, arises because of the identity of Haggarty, his very senior position in the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the professional connections with whom he is, or may be, associated. The administration of legal aid is a particularly sensitive area of public life. People are very likely to view it as completely unacceptable that a person holding such a position, affecting access to justice and peoples’ lives, comes to public attention in such circumstances. In his role, Haggarty will routinely have access to statements, precognitions and case summaries taken by solicitors in order to assess the merits of legal aid applications and to be satisfied of work undertaken by solicitors and others for payment purposes. Some of these will involve rent boy cases, accused persons and witnesses whom he may know from the rent boy scene. The SCAI requires to investigate this. It requires to address any substantial element of public perception (whether wholly accurate or not) that a known abuser of teenage boys routinely contributes to, or even makes, decisions about whether accused people are granted legal aid for representation in similar and other cases. For example, the simple question arises as to whether McBride was paid by SLAB to represent Haggarty’s interests to Crown Office? Haggarty will certainly have played some role in assessing McBride’s legal aid fees in many, many other cases.

A further case involving Haggarty

88. There is a further concerning case reported in the press, in relation to the activities of Douglas Haggarty and the exploitation through trafficking of a different rent boy. The rent boy’s name is Jamie Coltart. Jamie Coltart was accommodated in residential care at St Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh, between January and June 1996. It is understood that Jamie Coltart was arrested by police and charged with theft of Haggarty’s car at Longniddry. This was alleged to have happened on 12 June 1996. Haggarty had driven Coltart to Longniddry for sexual activity for which he paid Coltart. After sexual activity had taken place, Coltart stole Haggarty’s car keys, ran away and drove away in Haggarty’s car. Haggarty reported the theft of his car to the police. Coltart left the car in York Place, Edinburgh, according to the allegations on which he was later charged.²⁶
89. Jamie Coltart was represented by Alex Lafferty, Solicitor, Tranent, East Lothian. Lafferty was contacted on Coltart’s behalf and consulted with him in custody following the incident at Longniddry. Lafferty is now retired. He is understood to have a progressive cognitive difficulty, perhaps in the nature of demintia. However, his assistant at the time was involved in representing Jamie Coltart in at least his first application for bail when he appeared on petition at Haddington Sheriff Court. Lafferty’s assistant is (now) Sheila McCall, QC. Ms McCall will have knowledge of these and other matters in which Lafferty’s firm acted for Coltart. On the dates libelled in each of the offences, he was a child in care who was acting as a rent boy. This necessarily, therefore, appears to raise issues relating to child trafficking.
90. It is understood that proceedings against Coltart for the theft of Haggarty’s car, and related driving offences, at Longniddry and Edinburgh were discontinued without further action. He had appeared on a petition on which they were libelled. It is understood that the rationale for this decision may have been the application of the policy in Crown Office circular 2025/1. This application of the policy was in respect of a child (for the SCAI’s purposes) aged under 18 and accommodated in care at St Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh on the date of the offences, namely 12 June 1996. The circumstances, if true, appear to amount to trafficking of a child in care by Haggarty.
91. Coltart acted as a rent boy at other times between about January and June 1996, while he was accommodated at St Katharine’s Centre, Edinburgh. He was exploited by older men. Press reports from the time confirm this.²⁷ His social work history and care records from St Katharine’s will confirm this.

Andrew Hardie, QC, as complainer

92. The press reports from late 1996 and early 1997 relate to proceedings against Coltart for theft and other offences of dishonesty, as well as driving offences. The main “complainer” (although no complaint was made by him) was the then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Andrew Hardie, QC, now Lord Hardie. The complainer in respect of charges involving theft of a car at Longniddry and driving offences committed there and at York Place, Edinburgh, was Douglas Haggarty of SLAB.
93. The Glasgow Herald reported, on 4 December 1996, in the following terms:-

“A YOUTH appeared in court yesterday accused of using cheques and a credit card understood to belong to one of Scotland’s top lawyers to buy a car and more than £200 of petrol.

Jamie Coltart, 17, also known as Michael Stewart, was charged with using two Bank of Scotland cheques totalling £325 which bore to be signed by Mr Andrew R Hardie to obtain a motor car by fraud from James Hawthorn at a lock-up garage in Dundas Road, North Berwick, East Lothian on May 3.

He faces a further fraud charge relating to a Bank of Scotland Premier Visa Card held by Mr Andrew R Hardie, used at service stations after May 3.

Stewart is accused of stealing a car in Longniddry on June 12 and driving without an appropriate licence and insurance in York Place, Edinburgh, later on the same day.

Stewart, whose address was given as Stenhouse Street West, Edinburgh, appeared from custody at the city’s sheriff court. Sheriff Alexander Wilkinson continued the case without plea until this morning and remanded Stewart in custody.”

94. On 15 February 1997, the Glasgow Herald reported:-

“A teenager forged the signature of Scotland’s most senior advocate on two cheques and used them to buy a car, Edinburgh Sheriff Court was told yesterday.

The court heard that Jamie Coltart had never met Mr Andrew Hardie QC and had got the cheques and a credit card from a friend.

Mr Hardie, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, did not know his cheques and card had gone missing until the police contacted him.

They wanted to trace the keeper of the car and Mr Hardie’s name was on the cheques which had been used to buy it.

Coltart, 17, a first offender, was admonished by Sheriff Andrew Bell yesterday.

Sheriff Bell said he would have fined Coltart but for the fact that he had no income.

Coltart, also known as Michael Stewart, of Allan Breck Gardens, Edinburgh, admitted uttering two cheques for a total of £325 with Mr Hardie’s signature forged on them.

He used them to buy a car in North Berwick on May 3 last year.

Coltart’s plea of not guilty to another charge of fraudulently using Mr Hardie’s Visa card to buy more than £200 in goods from service stations was accepted by the Crown.

Senior depute-fiscal Alastair Brown said that Coltart was caught after an English police force traced the registered keeper of the car.

Mr Hardie’s name was on the cheques but it was clear that he had not bought the car, said Mr Brown.

”I am informed that Mr Hardie does not know and has never met the accused,” Mr Brown said. He said Coltart had told police he had got the credit cards from a friend.

Mr Brown said that the only loss was to the Bank of Scotland which had paid out the £325.

Mr Hardie had been cited as a witness but chose not to go into the courtroom to hear the case after Coltart’s plea was tendered.

Later, he said: ”I understand it’s a guilty plea, I have no further comment.”

95. There are several aspects of the press reports that require comment. Firstly, the offences alleged at the initial reported diet on 3 December 1996 were reduced from Solemn to Summary proceedings and transferred from Haddington Sheriff Court to Edinburgh. Secondly, the driving offences alleged to have taken place in Longniddry and York Place, Edinburgh had been “dropped” by the Crown by the time of the trial diet in February 1997. These related to the alleged theft by Coltart of Haggarty’s car. It is understood that Coltart did not even have a driving licence at the time of these offences. He was a young person in care. There was therefore no proper scope for the Crown to simply withdraw the allegations of driving offences. Driving offences have statutory penalties. None were ever imposed. This is of significance because, in these circumstances, it appears that the policy in Crown Office circular 2025/1 may have been applied. It appears that this is a case which was concerned with trafficking of a child in care through rent boy activities or prostitution. This clearly brings the case within the SCAI’s TORs. The whole case appears to require thorough and careful consideration and investigation.

The involvement of the Metropolitan Police

96. It is understood that Jamie Coltart was arrested in relation to this case some time in 1996 by police officers from the Metropolitan Police from London. It is not clear on what date this happened. The Met operating in Edinburgh and East Lothian appears very unusual in itself. It is understood that the Met were investigating the purchase and arrangement of rent boy services from Edinburgh, made in the City of London. It is understood that Andrew Hardie’s bank card details may have been used.
97. Information and materials relative to this investigation, and the conduct of proceedings, may be unlikely to be retained in Crown Office, in the whole circumstances. However, there may be material relative to this investigation which has been retained by the Met on the HOLMES database.
98. It should also be noted that the allegation was that Coltart had used Andrew Hardie’s “cheques”. There was no allegation that Coltart had possession of Andrew Hardie’s cheque book. It may be difficult to understand how cheques could be taken from a cheque book (still retained by Hardie) if Hardie had never met Coltart (or another person, unidentified, who had access to Hardie’s cheque book).
99. It is also understood that the Met officers interviewed Andrew Hardie in the Dean’s room at Parliament House. It is understood that they asked him, among other questions, whether he had been in London within an identified time period. He is said to have told them he had not. They are said to have later checked his diary and discovered that Hardie had, indeed, been in London during the relevant time period he was being asked about. He had been there accepting an award on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates. Marcello Mega, journalist, wrote an article for the Sunday Times reporting on these matters closer to the time or some time after they happened. Ultimately, the article was not published.
100. It is inconceivable that the fact of the Dean of Faculty having been interviewed by officers of the Met in the Dean’s room at Parliament House in connection with a rent boy case would not be known to the other Faculty officers at the time, and to many other members of the Faculty of Advocates. Yet none (it is understood) have ever come forward to report any concern to the SCAI or elsewhere. Bert Kerrigan, QC, is said to have obviously known something about it. There are some distinguished names among the Faculty officers of the time. Their knowledge may be important in any investigation. The investigation, progress and conduct of the proceedings against Jamie Coltart were certainly known to the law officers. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon was Lord Advocate. Paul Cullen, QC, was Solicitor General. He is said to have retained copies of papers in relation to the case. It is inconceivable that the cadre of ADs at the time did not know essential details. Various current judges (at all levels) and sheriffs were ADs and Crown Office officials at the time. All are likely to have known something about this. None appear to have volunteered information of concern to the SCAI or elsewhere, then or since.
101. Jamie Coltart is understood to have initially appeared on petition from custody at Haddington Sheriff Court, notwithstanding the detail in the press reports. Alex Lafferty’s assistant, Sheila McCall, represented him. The only issue at that stage was whether or not Coltart should be admitted to bail. Ms McCall persuaded the sheriff that he should be admitted to bail. The date of this appearance is unclear.
102. It is critical to note, at this stage, the following:- (i) the allegations relating to theft of, and driving, a car at Longniddry and Edinburgh on 12 June 1996 related to Douglas Haggarty’s car and the circumstances previously detailed; (ii) in order to secure legal aid cover for Jamie Coltart’s representation and to be paid for his work, Alex Lafferty required to provide SLAB with statements and precognitions that he had obtained or prepared for the case; (iii) this, in itself, was and is wholly inappropriate (standing Haggarty’s position at SLAB) and compromises the interests of justice; (iv) Lafferty was able to (properly) use the information relating to Haggarty’s involvement in sexual conduct with a child in care to secure the Crown’s agreement to withdrawing the charges relating to driving offences, all to his client’s advantage; and (v) the Crown, in any event, appears to have been guided in a manner consistent with Crown Office circular 2025/1. This presents just one example of a very concerning and apparently defective legal system in operation insofar as it relates to the welfare of trafficked children in care and from the perspective of TOR 6. Coltart was a child in care as at June 1996.
103. Alex Lafferty also succeeded in persuading the Crown that the case against Coltart should be reduced from solemn to summary procedure. It appears likely that the fact of the Haggarty charges having been dropped, and the policy in circular 2025/1, featured in the decision. In connection with the allegations relating to Hardie’s bank card and cheques, Coltart had been interviewed under caution by Met officers. He had been taken to London to be interviewed. Coltart’s explanation during the interview detailed the defence which was adhered to by Alex Lafferty on his behalf throughout the proceedings.
104. Coltart’s position was that he did not steal the card and cheques, he had possession of them because he was given them. His explanation was that he got the items from the complainer, Andrew Hardie. Coltart said he went with another person (unspecified) to London and they stayed in hotels. In discussions with Alex Lafferty, Coltart never used Hardie’s full name. He said he could identify Hardie.
105. The case against Jamie Coltart was not dealt with in Haddington as was normal practice. Instead, it was dealt with by the PF’s office at Edinburgh. Senior PFD Alistair Brown was allocated the case with a high level of secrecy. Alex Lafferty conducted negotiations on Coltart’s behalf with Alistair Brown. Coltart’s defence, throughout, was that he was given the card and cheques to use by the complainer.
106. Alex Lafferty precognosced Andrew Hardie in the Dean’s room at Parliament House. Herbert Kerrigan, QC, had phoned Alex Lafferty out of the blue. Lafferty had instructed Kerrigan as counsel on some previous occasions. He did not do so thereafter. Kerrigan appeared to want to emphasise what a marvellous man Andrew Hardie was. Hardie was asked by Lafferty how his card and cheques went missing. He said he didn’t know how. He said he didn’t know they were missing for about a week or two weeks. Hardie said he didn’t go to the police. The police came to him. He was told about the missing card and cheques by the police (ie the Met). He said he had no idea who had them. He said he didn’t know the person responsible.
107. On 14 February 1997, Alex Lafferty represented Jamie Coltart at the trial diet at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Andrew Hardie was required to wait in a witness room. It was envisaged he would require to give evidence at the trial. Lafferty was asked to come up from the court to meet with the PFD, Alistair Brown. That had never happened before in any case in Lafferty’s long career. The Crown case was still that Coltart had stolen the card and cheques and used them as libelled. Lafferty was told the Crown was prepared to reduce the allegations for a guilty plea. There were 3 senior PFDs involved in this discussion. They suggested restricting the libel to using the card once. The offer was for a guilty plea to one charge of reset of a bank card which was accepted not to have been in Coltart’s possession all of the time. They needed pleas in relation to the cheques. Ultimately, it appears, from the press reports, to have been agreed Coltart would plead guilty to the offences involving the cheques only. There was also some discussion about the disposal (a matter for the Sheriff). One important issue that may arise is whether Crown Office circular 2025/1 was relevant to the Crown’s approach to the plea negotiations. This is an issue, in the circumstances, that the SCAI will be anxious to investigate thoroughly.
108. Alex Lafferty was invited to bring Jamie Coltart into the PF’s office. This requires a journey from one virtual world, populated by criminals and drug addicts, to a very different, sanitised, office domain populated by polite professionals. The transformation is effected by a journey in a lift in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court building.
109. After the plea was recorded and the case disposed of by way of admonition, Coltart was taken out of the building by the rear entrance to the staff car park to avoid the press.
110. It had been Alex Lafferty’s intention, in accordance with his instructions, to go to trial on the basis that Hardie had given the card and cheques to Coltart. Hardie’s position, as presented to the court, was that he had never met Coltart and did not know him. Alistair Brown, with habitual great care to represent what the Crown actually accepted, said ”I am informed that Mr Hardie does not know and has never met the accused…”. This is not necessarily an acceptance by the Crown of Hardie’s position as fact. It is not known what other information the Crown had in its possession, for example, from the Met. Had the case not been resolved by a reduced guilty plea, as reported in the press, Coltart’s position would have been put to Hardie in evidence. If there is any element of truth in Coltart’s version, Hardie must have met Coltart. It appears that this may have been a possibility that the PFD could not rule out for the plea which was accepted to be deemed acceptable in the public interest. Coltart was a trafficked rent boy who was accommodated in care at the time (May-June 1996). Hardie was the Dean of Faculty and became Lord Advocate just a few weeks after the trial diet.
111. One question that remains is as follows:- why was the Crown so apparently keen to dispose of this case without a trial? If it was as straightforward as Coltart must be lying, and the Crown accepted Hardie’s position on the evidence available, why wasn’t the trial run on that basis? In the whole circumstances, there is a significant and substantial public interest in the SCAI thoroughly investigating this aspect of the case involving Hardie as complainer, as well as the charges involving Haggarty as complainer. The accused was a child in care who was known to prostitute himself as a rent boy. The SCAI must investigate this case and consider whether the policy in Crown Office circular 2025/1 played any part in the Crown’s approach. To what extent, if any, was this whole case concerned with child trafficking?
112. The SCAI must investigate the whole facts and circumstances of this case within the TORs. It may also be necessary to report the conduct of this case for independent investigation elsewhere, for example, to Crown Office and to the police (again). There is an apparent need to rule out and exclude the apprehension that the Crown’s approach, accepted by the Dean of Faculty as complainer, amounted to any perversion of the course of justice which resulted in a child in care (at the time of the offences) being convicted of a criminal offence on a pretext that was, factually, knowingly false even to a minimal extent. This would be a very serious matter indeed. The case appears to have involved trafficking through prostitution of a young person who was in care. It may relate to arrangements to purchase the services of other rent boys. The presentation of accepted facts by the Crown did not mention these aspects of the Met investigation.
113. Alex Lafferty was contacted much more recently by police in connection with this case. It was reported in the Sun newspaper.²⁸ This happened in about late 2015. They mentioned the name of Jamie Coltart. They mentioned Lord Hardie. They asked Lafferty to give a statement. He agreed to do so and went to Linlithgow police station to do so. They asked Lafferty questions about how the trial proceedings in 1997 were disposed of. This is clearly a matter that the SCAI will require to investigate. The police appear to have been re-investigating the disposal of a case in which the accused was a rent boy in care. One the face of matters, a child trafficking case. No doubt they will have spoken to Lord Hardie and to Jamie Coltart. It is unclear whether they were re-investigating the disposal of the charges relating to Haggarty. If they were not, they ought to have been. This is a matter of priority for the SCAI to investigate in the public interest and having regard to TOR 6. It may appear that Scotland’s justice system has still not caught up with what was thought necessary by Williams of Mostyn in 1996.²⁹
114. On account of the fact that the subject matter of the recent police investigation appears to have related, in part, to a case in which a rent boy who was in care may have been exploited by a public figure (Haggarty), the police investigation ought to have been notified to the SCAI. It appears to have been a case of trafficking of a child in care. The other aspects of the case, relating to Lord Hardie, may also have related, to some extent, to the activities, and trafficking, of a rent boy and the purchase of rent boy services. The rent boy was in care at the material times. The SCAI must investigate.
115. It is understood that Lord Hardie may have been interviewed by police even more recently in connection with allegations made about him by Susie Henderson, the daughter of Robert Henderson, QC.
116. For the sake of completeness, there is another allegation at large in respect of Lord Hardie by a person who posted his allegation on a blog site. It is in the following terms:-

“Garry Watson 22 October 2015 at 16:50

I was abused in a caravan near ingliston by Lord Hardie in the 70’s”.

The blog site is at³⁰.

I have been able to find no further information about this allegation.

Marc Strachan, Advocate

117. On 23 May 2007, the following report appeared in The Scotsman newspaper:

“A TOP Lothians lawyer has been accused of carrying out an indecent act on a 13-year-old boy in a shopping centre toilet. Mark Strachan, a married advocate from Linlithgow, West Lothian, is alleged to have committed the offence at McArthur Glen Shopping Centre on February 13 last year.

Strachan has been charged with an indecent assault on the boy, as well as using lewd, indecent and libidinous behaviour and making sexual remarks. The 48-year-old’s solicitor, Cameron Tait, denied the charge on his behalf at Edinburgh Sheriff Court today during a brief hearing. Strachan was excused attendance and is expected to appear at another preliminary hearing next week.

He could face a trial before a jury later this year and could be jailed if found guilty. Having studied and practiced law as a solicitor in Aberdeen, Strachan became an advocate in 2004 and currently is attached to the same stable as famed QC Donald Findlay. He is still working in the courts and has not been suspended by the Faculty of Advocates despite the allegations.”³¹

118. The reported allegations related to events said to have taken place on 13 February 2006.
119. Then, on 31 May 2007, the following report appeared in The Scotsman:

“CHARGES against a top lawyer accused of carrying out an indecent act on a 13-year-old boy in a public toilet have been dropped. Mark Strachan, a married advocate from Linlithgow, West Lothian, was alleged to have committed the offence in a toilet at McArthur Glen Shopping Centre on February 13 last year. But Crown Office officials ended the proceedings against Mr Strachan, who is attached to the same stable as famed QC Donald Findlay, after new evidence emerged in the inquiry. The 48-year-old had been due to answer the charges in person at Edinburgh Sheriff Court yesterday but was excused attendance at the last minute. The case was not called and later the fiscals at the court confirmed they would not pursue the case.”³²

120. The obvious question that arises for the SCAI is wether this a further application of the policy in Crown Office circular 2025/1? But, on this occasion, in relation to alleged acts with a 13 year-old boy. The SCAI must investigate the application of the policy. Was the 13 year-old in care?

Conclusion

121. TOR 6 sets out:-
122. “To consider the extent to which failures by state or non-state institutions (including the courts) to protect children in care in Scotland from abuse have been addressed by changes to practice, policy or legislation, up until such date as the Chair may determine.”

The detail set out above provides analysis and examples which point to a number of very grave problems in relation to the policy and practice of the courts, COPFS, social work services, the police, the Faculty of Advocates and every other part of the systems which ought to have been configured to protect children in care who have been trafficked through involvement in prostitution. The cases detailed above are mere examples of cases in which multiple failures by state and non-state institutions (including the courts) to protect children in care in Scotland can be seen. There are likely to be many, many more.

122. There are likely to be cases of exploitation of young people and children in care who will not themselves make applications to the SCAI. That is known from other inquiries such as that carried out in relation to the exploitation of children in Rotherham. Manifestly, that does not relieve the SCAI of the duty and responsibility to fearlessly and thoroughly search for and investigate these cases.
123. The particular failures by each of the systems will require to be investigated, identified and detailed by the SCAI within the TORs. This task ought to be undertaken as a discrete and free-standing chapter for evidence and research by the SCAI.
124. It also appears that there have been multiple failures, at every level, to report the issues of trafficking of children in care through prostitution, summarised in this note. The obligation to report “suspicions” about such matters endures to the present day. There are many examples, in various countries, of public figures being presently held to account for their failures to report child abuse of this kind which they knew about in the past.
125. It is most concerning that there is nothing at all to suggest that the very obvious systemic failures which must exist to permit the gross exploitation of children in care by trafficking through prostitution have been addressed by any changes to practice, policy or legislation. In order to even embark on the process of correcting failures, those failures must be identified, recognised, addressed and then rectified. For example, it is unclear whether the policy in Crown Office circular 2025/1 continues to operate in Crown Office and beyond. If it does not, when and why did it end? Who was involved in making decisions about this? What were the considerations?
126. The most recent investigations by police of the Jamie Coltart case appear not to have led to the identification of the child trafficking issues detailed above. Even on a reconsideration of the case by police in present times, the issue of exploitation of a child in care through prostitution appears to have been obscured. Instead, Coltart has again been portrayed as a “fraudster”. He ought, instead, to be recognised as a victim.
127. This case is just one example of what appears to be a systemic failure in Scotland to identify, acknowledge, quantify and rectify child trafficking of children in the care system through prostitution.
128. The detail set out in this note appears to engage all of the SCAI’s TORs; but especially TORs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

John Halley, Advocate

1 April 2019.

1 Kent, R (1997) Children’s Safeguards Review, Edinburgh, Scottish Office, p12.

2 Kendrick, A, Safeguarding Children Living Away from Home from Abuse: A Literature Review, in Kent, R (1997) Children’s Safeguards Review, Edinburgh, Scottish Office, pp143-276.

3 Lee, M and O’Brien, R (1995) The Game’s Up: Redefining Child Prostitution, London: The Children’s Society.

4 Williams of Mostyn (1996) Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, London, The Stationery Office.

5 Nimmo Smith, WA, and Friel, JD (1993) Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland, HMSO.

6 http://www.freshstartfoundation.co.uk/fsf-videos/videos/

7 Eg, https://www.ecpat.org.uk/pages/category/child-trafficking-and-modern-slavery-research

8 Nimmo Smith, WA, and Friel, JD (1993) The Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland, HMSO.

9 Jay, A (2014) Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, pp1-2.

10http://www.freshstartfoundation.co.uk/fsf-videos/videos/

11 Jay, A (2014) Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, pp 32-33.

12 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rLdAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yaUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2445,1440146

13 https://www.scotsman.com/news/rollers-chief-linked-to-sex-abuse-network-1-1351776

14 Williams of Mostyn (1996) Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, London, The Stationery Office

15 Lee, M and O’Brien, R (1995) The Game’s Up: Redefining Child Prostitution, London: The Children’s Society.

16 Eg, research by Dr Sarah Nelson https://www.scotsman.com/news/rollers-chief-linked-to-sex-abuse-network-1-1351776

17 Williams of Mostyn (1996) Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, London, The Stationery Office; Lee, M and O’Brien, R (1995) The Game’s Up: Redefining Child Prostitution, London: The Children’s Society.

18 Williams of Mostyn (1996) Childhood Matters: Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, London, The Stationery Office.

19 https://spidercatweb.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/tam-paton-csa-inquiry/

20 Spence, Simon, When the screaming stops – the dark history of the Bay City Rollers, Amazon, April 2016.

21 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rLdAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yaUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2445,1440146

22 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=T8pAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uaUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2283,1149148

23 https://www.scotsman.com/news/rollers-chief-linked-to-sex-abuse-network-1-1351776

24 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/exclusive-legal-aid-chief-arrested-1020958

25 https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/120701/Sex-case-lawyer-s-job-saved

26 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12030821.youth-in-court-for-use-of-lawyers-credit-card/; https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12077946.youth-forges-qcs-cheques/;

27 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12030821.youth-in-court-for-use-of-lawyers-credit-card/; https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12077946.youth-forges-qcs-cheques/; https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/401185/cops-quiz-fraudster-who-forged-former-lord-advocate-andrew-hardies-signature-to-buy-a-car-20-years-ago/

28 https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/401185/cops-quiz-fraudster-who-forged-former-lord-advocate-andrew-hardies-signature-to-buy-a-car-20-years-ago/

29 See para 11 above.

30http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-magic-circle-pedophile-ring.html

31 https://www.scotsman.com/news/lawyer-accused-of-indecent-assault-on-boy-1-1318391; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6683807.stm

32 https://www.scotsman.com/news/indecent-act-charges-against-lawyer-dropped-1-1319203

Paper Apart

Background facts

1. The Claimant is an Advocate at the Scottish Bar. On 4 September 2015 he was appointed/instructed as Lead Junior Counsel to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (“SCAI”). The terms of his appointment/instruction were contained within a letter from the then Chair of the SCAI, Susan O’Brien QC, dated 4 September 2015 and Ministerial Determination dated 28 August 2015 which specified the hourly rate of fee for work undertaken. The duration of his engagement/instruction was for the duration of the SCAI until its termination in accordance with section 14(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005. The Respondent is the serving Inquiry Panel of the SCAI in terms of section 3 of the Inquiries Act 2005.
2. The senior SCAI team included the Claimant; two Senior Counsel to the SCAI, Colin MacAulay, QC (“CM”), and James Peoples, QC (“JP”); Andrea Summers (“AS”), Solicitor to the SCAI; Felicity Cullen (“FC”), Deputy Solicitor to the SCAI; and Julie-Ann Jamieson (“JAJ”), Secretary to the SCAI. AS, FC and JAJ are all seconded Scottish Government employees and/or civil servants.
3. On 1 August 2016 the Respondent commenced her appointment as Chair of the SCAI. Between 1 and 3 August 2016, the Respondent spent time with the senior SCAI team members individually attempting to build up a picture of relevant issues for her immediate attention.
4. On 3 August 2016 the Respondent required that the Claimant meet with her. During the meeting the Respondent told the Claimant that the SCAI’s Scottish Government employees did not trust him. The Respondent told the Claimant that he was required to show his commitment to the SCAI and the Inquiry team. The Claimant assured the Respondent of his complete commitment to the SCAI and its work. The Claimant continued to undertake work for the purposes of the SCAI, including travel to East Sussex to take evidence on 19 August 2016. (p54, documents). From around August 2016, the Claimant was becoming increasingly ill. This was manifest in extreme fatigue and lack of energy caused by gross anaemia. The Claimant told CM and JP about his health difficulties at every stage.

Facts demonstrating discrimination, harassment and victimisation

The Claimant’s Disability

5. On 1 September 2016 the Claimant underwent medical tests and other procedures. He had been unwell during 2016. In particular, he had had a 3-week absence from work at SCAI in February-March 2016 suffering from pneumonia. He had never fully recovered. He was diagnosed as suffering from gross anaemia in August 2016. He was obviously unwell between February and October 2016. These facts were known to Respondent and the senior team of the SCAI as the Claimant’s illness progressed during August, September and October 2016. (pp 95-96, documents). During the Claimant’s absence in February-March 2016, the Claimant had received regular contact, emails, get well soon cards and good wishes from his colleagues on the SCAI team, including CM, JP, AS, JAJ and FC. This was in complete contrast with what happened when the Claimant became very seriously ill in August to October 2016.
6. On 2 September 2016 the Claimant required to have a blood transfusion at Borders General Hospital, Melrose (“BGH”). He had previously been diagnosed as grossly anaemic, evidently losing blood. He discussed this immediately with CM. The Respondent and senior SCAI team were informed immediately. The Claimant asked CM to ensure that he should continue to be included in emails during any periods working at home or absent. CM said he would do so. This did not happen.(pp 95-96, documents).
7. On 8 September 2016 the Claimant underwent endoscopy examination at BGH. This showed no significant findings. The Claimant was very tired, lethargic and anxious. He was increasingly anxious about the apparent hostility of the Respondent, AS, FC and JAJ; and about CM and JP’s apparent lack of support for his position. The Claimant discussed these matters openly with CM and JP, throughout August and September 2016. The Respondent was fully aware of the Claimant’s health difficulties. (pp 106-108, documents).
8. Between 1 and 30 September 2016, the senior Inquiry team, including JAJ, AS and FC, continued in a concerted and determined plan to inflate the issue of conflict of interest in order that the Respondent would prevail upon the Claimant to resign. This made the Claimant very anxious. (pp 111-112, documents).

8(a). The Respondent’s discriminatory, harassing and victimising conduct towards the Claimant (especially, but not exclusively, on and after 21 October 2016) is not reasonably explained by reference to a legitimate concern about conflict of interest. The Respondent, CM, JP, AS, FC and JAJ and others working in the SCAI all have substantial and enduring personal and professional conflicts of interest in respect of the SCAI’s Terms of Reference. Any full and proper consideration of the issue of conflict of interest required to consider those matters also.

9. Between 1 and 10 October 2016 the Claimant underwent further tests at BGH, details of which were relayed to CM and JP. In particular, the Claimant underwent a colonoscopy on 10 October 2016 following which he was advised that he had bowel cancer. The Claimant told CM about the diagnosis on 12 October 2016 and asked CM to communicate this to the Respondent initially, and eventually to the senior SCAI team. (pp 129-133, documents). The Claimant was and remains a disabled person in terms of sections 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. His diagnosis was confirmed to him on 11 October 2016 albeit he had been suffering from the effects of cancer for some time prior to that date and was known to be unwell.

After Diagnosis

10. On 11 October 2016 the Claimant confirmed with CM that he was to work at home due to illness. The Claimant worked on SCAI work on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016 at home and submitted fee notes dated 27 October 2016 in accordance with SCAI’s new protocol for dealing with counsels’ fees dated 16 September 2016. (pp 130-131; and 34-35, documents).
11. The Claimant’s request for permission to work at home was a request for reasonable adjustments. Further, it was a protected act in terms of section 27(2) of the EA 2010. The Respondent and CM knew that the Claimant was working at home on several of these dates because they communicated with him by email on those, and other days.
12. Notwithstanding his cancer diagnosis, on 10 October 2016, CM (on the Respondent’s instructions) continued to pursue the Claimant without consideration of the diagnosis, its effect on the Claimant, nor the anxiety that the Claimant was inevitably enduring in the whole circumstances. (pp 131-134, documents). The Respondent and CM pursued the Claimant with apparent determination to ignore his disability and to take advantage of the Claimant because of it.
13. CM contacted the Claimant after 5pm on 12 October 2016 asking to meet at Parliament House. The Claimant was extremely anxious and distressed because of the pressure being put on him. The Claimant made extensive efforts to contact CM by phone. The Claimant eventually succeeded and told CM of the cancer diagnosis and need for surgery. The Claimant asked for understanding in relation to the anxiety and distress he was suffering due to the pressure the Respondent and the SCAI team were putting him under and because of his cancer diagnosis. CM alleged a change of circumstances involving information about a whistleblower and put further pressure on the Claimant to resign. The Claimant said he would not resign. (pp 133-137; 142-144 documents).
14. On 14 October 2016, CM continued to press the Claimant to meet with CM and JP at Parliament House in order to put pressure on the Claimant to resign. CM suggested a meeting the following week. This was on the Respondent’s instructions. (pp 133-137, documents). The Respondent, CM and JP pursued the Claimant with apparent determination to ignore his disability and to take advantage of the Claimant because of it.
15. At the same time, the Claimant required to make practical arrangements for undergoing major surgery which would inevitably affect himself and his family to an unknown extent at that time. (pp 138-141, documents).
16. On 15 October 2016, the Claimant sought advice from the Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates about his situation, the pressure it was putting him under, and the extreme anxiety and distress it was causing him. (pp 142-144, documents).
17. On 17 October 2016, at 15.45, the Respondent emailed the Claimant expressing sympathy for his illness. In the email message, the Respondent intentionally and materially misrepresented the facts as to how and when the latest alleged relevant report of a complaint to the SCAI had come about. THE NEXT SEVERAL SENTENCES ARE REDACTED. DETAIL REDACTED. The Claimant had worked at St Katherine’s Centre, Edinburgh between 1994 and 1996 on part time nightshift on Fridays and Saturdays whilst also undertaking his legal traineeship. (pp 158-159; compare with summary in pp142-144).
18. The Claimant promptly replied to the Respondent’s email from his desk at home at 16.10. The Respondent thanked the Claimant for his prompt reply. The Claimant was obviously working at his desk at home. A meeting was arranged for 10am on 21 October 2016 to suit the Respondent’s diary. (pp 157-159, documents).
19. On 19 October 2016 the Claimant attended his GP presenting with severe anxiety related to the pressure he was being put under at work and his cancer diagnosis. Dr Glenfield wrote a letter dated 19 October 2016 advising of the Claimant’s cancer diagnosis, the need for treatment, the Claimant’s severe anxiety and his own advice (which the Claimant could follow, or not) to stop work immediately. (pp 155-156, documents). The immediate concern in relation to work was the Claimant’s severe anxiety due to hostility by the Respondent and others along with the cancer diagnosis.
20. Until 31 October 2016, when the Claimant underwent surgery, he could have worked on SCAI work if he had been permitted to do so at home and with the support of the Respondent and the senior SCAI team. He was unfit to work at the SCAI premises on account of the extreme pressure that the Respondent had been subjecting him to. He was able to do, and did, other demanding work which did not cause severe anxiety. He sat as Sheriff at Selkirk Sheriff Court on 26, 27 and 28 October 2016, hearing and deciding on both civil and criminal cases.
21. On 20 October 2016 at 09.07, the Respondent asked for the meeting on 21 October to be re-arranged for 10.30. By reply at 09.20, the Claimant agreed to the time alteration. The Claimant was obviously at his desk working.
22. The Claimant became very anxious, distressed and overwhelmed and decided he would not attend the meeting because of the Respondent’s hostile and discriminatory conduct and his illness. He drafted an email attaching a letter from his GP, which Dr Glenfield had written following the consultation on 19 October 2016. (pp 145-146, documents).
23. The Claimant was very anxious and unwell during the night of 20 October 2016 because of the Respondent’s escalating and relentless pressure on him and because of his illness. (p 154, documents).
24. At 09.02 on 21 October 2016, the Claimant sent a message to the Respondent informing that he would not be able to attend the meeting that day; that he was unwell; and that he was able to work at home as long as it did not make him anxious. The Claimant was also keen to ascertain what support the SCAI might provide in order that the Claimant could work when he was able to during his anticipated absence through illness. The Claimant made a request for reasonable adjustments to enable him to complete the work had had been working on at home since 11 October 2016. This was a protected act in terms of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. (p 154, documents).
25. The Claimant’s email also informed the Respondent, with evidence provided, that he was, from the moment of intimation of the email, unfit for SCAI work (except to work at home). This was a protected act in terms of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
26. At 11.17 on 21 October 2016, the Respondent replied. The Respondent’s reply contained what the Claimant considers to be confrontational remarks. The Respondent reacted as if the Claimant had done something wrong. The Respondent has consistently continued to treat the Claimant as if he has done something wrong since this time. The Respondent has consistently continued to treat the Claimant unfavourably because of his email message to the Respondent on 21 October 2016. The Respondent’s unfavourable treatment of the Claimant is because of something arising in consequence of the Claimant’s disability, namely his email dated 21 October 2016. The Respondent’s reply discriminated against the Claimant because of his email and GP’s letter. Both arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability. The Respondent’s reply victimised the Claimant in response to his intimation that he was unfit for SCAI work (except at home) and in response to his request for reasonable adjustments.
27. Despite the Claimant’s desire to work at home for as long as he was able to, the Respondent used the Claimant’s illness, and GP letter, as the reason for directing the Claimant to stop work on SCAI material immediately. This was the aim that the Respondent had intended to achieve in any event. (p 160-161, documents). The Respondent thereby treated the Claimant unfavourably because of something arising in connection with his disability, namely his email to the Respondent on 21 October 2016 requesting reasonable adjustments and his GP’s letter dated 19 October 2016. Further, the Respondent vicitmised the Claimant because of his email dated 21 October 2016 which was a protected act.
28. The Claimant was deeply distressed and severely anxious as a result of the Respondent’s unnecessarily confrontational reply, especially the Respondent’s comments about his “limited” “rights”, a “zero hours contract” and whether the Claimant was entitled to consideration in the context of a sickness and leave of absence policy. The Claimant interpreted these comments by the Respondent as incorrect in law and unnecessary. The Claimant viewed the Respondent’s comments as unfavourable treatment of him because of his email and his request for reasonable adjustments and amounting to harassment and/or victimisation of him. The Claimant did not reply to the Respondent’s message. It is evident from the detail in the Respondent’s email dated 21 October 2016 that the Respondent had no regard for the Claimant’s rights as a person with disability in terms of the Equality Act 2010. CM contacted the Claimant by email on 23-28 October 2016 and the Claimant replied. (pp 177-178, documents).
29. The purpose of the Claimant’s message on 21 October 2016, and GP’s letter, was to notify the Respondent, with evidence provided, that he was no longer fit to work in the severely anxious circumstances in which he had had to work under pressure from the Respondent. In the circumstances, the Claimant was entitled to assert that position and expect that the Respondent would respect his position and afford him privacy for treatment. The Respondent persistently failed to do so. The Respondent treated the Claimant as if he had done something wrong. The Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of his illness, need for privacy, the severe anxiety he was suffering in consequence of the Respondent’s conduct towards him and his request for reasonable adjustments in the context of a sickness and leave of absence policy.
30. On 21 October 2016 the Respondent made the decision to effect complete curtailment of the Claimant’s appointment as counsel to the SCAI. The Respondent made the decision notwithstanding the Claimant’s legitimate absence through serious illness. (p 160-161, documents). The Respondent made the decision because of something arising in connection with his disability, namely his GP’s letter dated 19 October 2016.The Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably. The Respondent’s conduct in this regard has extended over the whole period since 21 October 2016 to date.

Fee Notes for Work Done

31. Between 26 and 30 October 2016, the Claimant spent time putting his affairs in order in contemplation of a confirmed date for surgery on 31 October 2016. As part of this process, the Claimant submitted fee notes for his outstanding SCAI work. (pp 164-165; 168-169; and 175-176, documents). The Respondent has instructed that these fee notes should not be paid. Despite repeated requests for payment, this situation continues to date.
32. The Respondent’s conduct, in this regard, constitutes unfavourable treatment of the Claimant because of his need to work at home following cancer diagnosis. No account has been taken of the effect of the Claimant’s disability on him at the time. On the contrary, it has been ignored and the Claimant has been taken advantage of because of it by the Respondent’s punitive actings. The need to work at home arose in consequence of the cancer diagnosis. The Claimant’s request to work at home was a request for reasonable adjustments. The Respondent’s instruction not to pay the Claimant’s fees was and is victimisation of the Claimant. The Respondent’s unfavourable treatment and victimisation of the Claimant extends over the whole period from 21 October 2016 to date. The Claimant’s fees have still not been paid despite repeated requests.

Circumstances when in hospital, during recovery and during chemo

33. The Claimant required, and underwent, major surgery on 31 October 2016 in respect of his bowel cancer. He further undertook chemotherapy from around 6 December 2016 with the 8^th and final cycle commencing on 24 May 2017. The Respondent continued after 21 October 2016 to proceed by completely ignoring the Claimant’s disability, as described in the following paragraphs. By persistently ignoring the Claimant’s illness, the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of his illness which arose in connection with his disability. The Respondent’s conduct extends, and has recently been re-asserted, over the whole period to date.
34. The Respondent instructed CM to email the Claimant on 31 October 2016 (documents, p 177). On 31 October 2016 the Claimant underwent major surgery at BGH. CM’s email can be seen to have been received during the time the Claimant was undergoing surgery.This was unwanted contact by CM on behalf of, and instructed by, the Respondent that had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating a hostile and intimidating environment for the Claimant.
35. On 2 November 2016 the Respondent instructed CM to phone the Claimant. The Claimant had only just been discharged from intensive care into a post- surgical ward at BGH when he received a call from CM. He could not move in his bed to answer the phone. The Claimant was very ill, incapacitated and was being given regular pain relief with morphine at the time. The Claimant’s wife required to speak to CM and to tell CM to leave the Claimant in peace. CM repeatedly insisted that the Respondent needed a “prognosis”. This had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity and creating a hostile and intimidating environment for the Claimant since neither the Claimant nor his wife had any idea what the prognosis for the Claimant would be. The Claimant was very ill. Biopsies had been taken during surgery and were being sent for examination. This was contact of the most unwanted kind. (p 179, documents). The Claimant had had a significant part of his bowel removed. The Claimant’s cancer was eventually staged at stage 3.
36. The Claimant was deeply distressed and very anxious as a result of CM’s attempts to contact him while he was in hospital. The Claimant required to receive continuous morphine, steroids and other medication. He was seriously ill. The Claimant acutely felt victimised and harassed. Medical staff asked the Claimant’s wife whether he was suffering from some type of paranoia because he appeared to be confused and articulating concerning statements. Medical staff were assured that the Claimant was talking about events that were really happening to him.
37. After having initially improved to the extent that he could be discharged from intensive care, the Claimant became very ill. The Claimant’s bowel appeared not to be functioning properly after initially encouraging signs. On 3 November 2016 the Claimant became very ill during the night. The Claimant’s bowel was not functioning. He was vomiting faecal matter. The Claimant felt as if he was going to die. He required to have a doctor called on an emergency basis to re-prescribe medication for him. Nursing staff were telling him he may require to have further surgery if there was a leak from his bowel. He was extremely alarmed and concerned that he could not, by then, survive further surgery. He had a very raised temperature and was feverish. He managed to construct a text message over a number of hours and sent it to his wife. The message included the Claimant’s expressed concerns about the discrimination, harassment and victimisation he had been suffering from the Respondent and CM.
38. On 4 November 2016 the Claimant was treated with the use of a nasogastric tube. Eventually, after several days, his system was drained and began to recover and his bowel began to function. He remained in hospital until he was discharged on 8 November 2016. He was very weak, having eaten very little during his time in hospital. He had lost a considerable amount of weight due to the trauma of surgery and its consequences. He required active care when discharged home. He was confined to bed. He required to take painkillers. He did not sleep well. The surgical wound in his abdominal wall was regularly leaking. In these circumstances, he felt particularly vulnerable because of the Respondent’s continuing harassment and victimisation of him.
39. On 15 November 2016, the Respondent again instructed CM to contact the Claimant to pursue him further. This was unwanted contact. The Claimant was suffering from a large infected surgical wound in his abdomen. He required to have the wound dressed daily at his GP surgery.
40. CM and the Respondent knew, or ought to have known, that any contact with the Claimant in the circumstances would be unwanted and distressing for him. Regardless of this, CM passed his communication, on the Respondent’s behalf, through his own and the Claimant’s mutual clerk, Liz Manderson. CM’s contact with the Claimant through Liz Manderson was unwanted contact.
41. On 14-15 November 2016, CM communicated that the Respondent required the Claimant’s SCAI laptop, blackberry and SCAI papers to be returned to the SCAI offices. This was said to be in connection with data protection requirements. This was at a time when both CM and the Respondent knew that the Claimant was physically and psychologically vulnerable. The Respondent’s position was not justified by data protection considerations, nor otherwise. (p185, documents). The Claimant is and was a registered data controller.
42. On 23 November 2016, the Respondent again instructed CM to contact the Claimant to pursue him further. This was unwanted contact. The Claimant was still suffering from an infected surgical wound in his abdomen which was being treated with antibiotics. He still required to have the wound dressed regularly at his GP surgery. CM, again, relayed to the Claimant via their mutual clerk that the Respondent required the Claimant’s SCAI laptop, blackberry and SCAI papers to be returned to the SCAI offices. The Claimant viewed this as behaviour on the part of both the Respondent and CM as calculated to be hostile and intimidating in the full knowledge that the Claimant was likely to be physically and psychologically vulnerable. (p190, documents).

Non Payment of OutstandingFee Notes

43. By about 23 November 2016 the Claimant had noticed that his two final fee notes relating to SCAI work had not been paid. This did not conform with the arrangements for detail required in fee notes, and payment of counsels’ fees, put in place by AS on 15 September 2016 (pp 34-35, documents). These fee notes related to work carried out at home, with CM’s agreement, immediately following the Claimant’s diagnosis of cancer. The Claimant’s clerk, Liz Manderson, raised the matter with CM on 23 November 2016. CM said he did not know anything about the matter but would raise it with the SCAI senior team. (p190, documents).
44. On 24 November 2016, CM phoned Liz Manderson in relation to the Claimant’s outstanding fees. Liz Manderson reported the conversation to the Claimant in the following terms, as recollected by the Claimant:

“[CM] says this does not come from me – it’s comes from Lady Smith. Lady Smith wrote to John on the 21st October asking for John to send [CM] the work he had done and nothing has appeared. That’s why payment has been held back. Re your fee for work undertaken on the 23rd – 29th May, 38 hours. Lady Smith knows on the 27th May you were doing a Hearing. Did you make an allowance for the preparation and attendance.” (p192, documents).

45. The Claimant was deeply distressed by this. He viewed this as unjustified and punitive behaviour on the part of the Respondent. The Claimant viewed this as part of an ongoing course of conduct by the Respondent, and CM, amounting to ongoing discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation of him. The Respondent’s unjustified and punitive behaviour continues and extends over the period of time to date.
46. As CM knew, as he had authorised, the Claimant was working at home on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016 following his cancer diagnosis on 10 October 2016. The Respondent, and CM, well knew that the Claimant had been completely incapacitated since 31 October 2016.
47. Knowing this to have been the case (and having communicated by email with the Claimant on several of the dates in question when he was obviously working), the Respondent decided to intervene in the SCAI’s normal arrangements (and, until then, universally applied) for payment of counsels’ fees by instructing that payment should be withheld. The Claimant viewed, and continues to view, the Respondent’s continuing behaviour as ongoing discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation of him.
48. The Respondent continues to act in this unlawful and discriminatory manner towards the Claimant as confirmed by JAJ on 9 February 2017 (p215, documents); and on 29 March and 2 April 2019 (pp 213-237, documents). The Respondent continued to act in this unlawful manner by failing to even acknowledge, far less reply to, the Claimant’s email dated 1 April 2019 until a response was sent by JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf on 25 April 2019. The Respondent’s conduct extends over the period from late 2016 to date.
49. In addition, on 24 November 2016, CM was communicating that the Respondent was making an allegation that the Claimant may have submitted excessive fees on a previous occasion in May 2016. The Claimant views this as a baseless accusation made by the Respondent while the Claimant was clearly very ill. The Claimant considers that this was calculated by the Respondent to intimidate, humiliate and upset him. It did so.
50. The Respondent ought to have made enquires prior to raising the issue of the May 2016 fee. Enquires, of CM and JP, would have demonstrated that the Claimant was in London during the early part of the week in question on SCAI business with the other senior SCAI members, including CM and JP. (pp193-194; and 29-33, documents). In fact, the Claimant did not submit fees for all of the hours that could have been justified for the work, travel and time away from home, in London.
51. On 29 November 2016, the Claimant received the following message from his clerk:-

“Elizabeth Manderson

Sent: 29 November 2016 13:44

To: John Halley

Hi John

I hope you are feeling ok today.

Colin Macaulay has just been in to say Lady Smith is very anxious that she’s not got the material back from you. Lady Smith requires this back asap. If she does not get it back asap she is going to make a complaint to the Dean.

Thanks

Liz”.

52. There was no proper basis for the Respondent to threaten to make a complaint of professional misconduct to the Dean of Faculty. None was subsequently specified by the Respondent.
53. The Claimant asked for the assistance of the Dean and Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates to deal with the Respondent’s conduct towards the Claimant. The Claimant was preparing to commence a course of chemotherapy on 6 December 2016. The Respondent’s conduct towards him caused the Claimant great anxiety and stress. It required the Claimant to have to think about, and deal with, the Respondent’s hostility while he ought to have been single-mindedly focused on recovery. (pp 197-198; and pp 202-204, documents).
54. On 2 December 2016, the Claimant’s clerk sent him an email which included the following:

“I left a message on your mobile yesterday saying Mr Macaulay had come in to the office (Thursday 1st Dec), Lady Smith must have you laptop, black bury and any Inquiry papers back asap. They are prepared to come down to your house or to PH to collect. Once they have been returned Lady Smith will seriously consider paying your outstanding fees.” (p203, documents).

55. The Claimant was very alarmed and anxious at the prospect of any SCAI representatives coming to his home. On receipt of the materials there is no evidence that the Respondent seriously considered paying the Claimant’s outstanding fees.
56. The Dean of Faculty met with the Respondent on the Claimant’s behalf on 7 December 2016. The Respondent did not mention any basis for professional complaint against the Claimant. The Respondent told the Dean that the Claimant’s appointment as counsel to the SCAI had not been terminated. The Dean instructed the Claimant that his SCAI laptop, blackberry and papers should be returned to the SCAI. (pp204-207, documents).
57. The Dean considered (notwithstanding the SCAI protocol for payment of counsels’ fees) that it was not unreasonable to provide some further specification of work carried out on the dates of unpaid fee notes. The Dean advised the Claimant of his impression was that that did not require to be very full or detailed. (p 206, documents).
58. On 21 December 2016, the Respondent contacted the Dean and threatened to raise court proceedings against the Claimant. There was no proper basis for doing so. The Claimant was contacted by the Vice Dean. (pp 209-210, documents). The Claimant was, and is, entitled to do protected acts in terms of section 27 of the EA 2010. The Respondent’s actings and threat had no lawful basis and appear to the Claimant to have been motivated by malice in the absence of any lawful basis. (pp 209-210, documents). The Respondent’s threat amounts to victimisation of the Claimant in terms of section 27 of the EA 2010 for doing a protected act.
59. The Claimant was severely anxious and upset by the Respondent’s threat. He was unable to sleep at night. On 30 December 2016 the Claimant attended his GP. Dr Glenfield recorded a clinical consultation note in the Claimant’s GP records in the following terms:

“…has had 2^nd cycle of chemo. Sleep poor due to anxieties around work. Has been threatened with a complaint. On 21^st Dec Chair of Child Abuse enquiry has falsely accused pt of something. Possibility of litigation. Very stressed out, even received email on the day of operation concerning not responding to email from the Chair.”

60. Dr Glenfield wrote a letter on 30 December 2016 in the following terms:-

“Dear Sir/Madam

Re Mr John Halley, Caddonfoot House, Galashiels TD1 3LG

This patient had a hemicolectomy for cancer of the colon on 31^st October 2016 and at present is having a course of chemotherapy, which will last for another 8 months. At present he has become very anxious regarding work and has been advised, again, to avoid any work issues that cause him anxiety.

Yours sincerely….”

61. The Respondent made no further communication with the Claimant following the threat of proceedings. The Claimant was left to spend Christmas, unwell, and with the threat of proceedings hanging over his head. The Claimant has heard nothing further in relation to the Respondent’s threat, to date. As far as the Claimant is aware, the Respondent’s threat still hangs over him. The Respondent’s victimisation of the Claimant is a continuing act to date.
62. On 9 February 2017, JAJ emailed the Claimant’s clerks in relation to the Claimant’s outstanding SCAI fees. On the Respondent’s behalf, JAJ stated:-

“As was explained to ‎Liz, the fee notes will be paid when Lady Smith has evidence of the work undertaken to support the fees rendered. We realise, of course that John is unwell at the moment so do not wish to trouble him.”. (p215, documents).

63. The explanation given by JAJ appears to differ from the understanding of the Dean of Faculty that further specification of the work undertaken did not require to be very full or detailed. This left the Claimant in the position of having to “write up” the research and work he had already carried out before payment of his outstanding fees was to be made. This position was repeated to Faculty Services Ltd (“FSL”) by JAJ on 25 February 2017. (p 224, documents).
64. The Claimant spent in excess of 4 weeks (160 hours) revisiting, reviewing and writing up the material he had been working on in respect of the unpaid fee notes. The Claimant’s Note, dated 1 April 2019, runs to in excess of 17,500 words. The Claimant required to complete the Note in order to be paid his outstanding fees submitted on 27 October 2016. The Claimant is entitled to payment by the SCAI for this work, in addition to payment for his outstanding fee notes previously submitted. The Claimant submitted a fee note dated 29 April 2019 in respect of this work. The Respondent has refused to pay the Claimant’s fees. The Respondent continues to victimise the Claimant by her refusal.
65. On 29 March 2019, FSL again requested payment of the Claimant’s outstanding fees. JAJ reiterated the same position in response.
66. On 1 April 2019, the Claimant sent an email message to the Respondent. The Claimant also attached a note summarising the work he had been working on during the days for which his fees have not been paid by the Respondent. The Claimant did not receive any acknowledgement that the Respondent had received the message, nor the note containing highly sensitive information until 25 April 2019. (pp 238-239; 240-244, documents). The Respondent’s conduct, in this regard, is unfavourable treatment. It is because of the Claimant’s absence from work through illness and recovery. This arises in connection with his disability.
67. On 2 April 2019, the Claimant requested FSL to request immediate payment of the Claimant’s outstanding SCAI fees. JAJ replied that the Respondent was too busy dealing with hearings to deal with the matter. (pp 230-231, documents).
68. The Respondent’s reply, written by JAJ, dated 25 April 2019, to the Claimant’s email dated 1 April 2019 further discriminated against and victimised the Claimant. The Respondent continued to found upon previous unfavourable treatment of the Claimant in her emails dated 17 and 21 October 2016. This is further unfavourable treatment by the Respondent. The Respondent’s further unfavourable treatment is because of the Claimant’s request for reasonable adjustments in his email dated 1 April 2019 and the writing up work he was required to complete. These arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability. The Respondent’s discrimination and victimisation extends over the whole period to date.
69. The Respondent’s reply dated 25 April 2019 terminated the Claimant’s appointment as Lead Junior Counsel to the SCAI. The Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of the Claimant’s request for reasonable adjustments and payment of his fees properly charged during periods of necessary work at home. These arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability. Further, the Respondent terminated the Claimant’s appointment during the time that the Claimant was legitimately absent from work though illness. This is unfavourable treatment and victimisation. The Claimant’s continued absence from work through illness is presently caused by work related stress due to the Respondent’s discrimination, harassment and victimisation of him. The Respondent’s letter dated 25 April 2019 founds upon the Claimant’s absence through illness (“lack of contact with SCAI since October 2016”) as a reason for terminating his appointment. The Claimant’s lack of contact and absence through illness arises in consequence of his disability. The Claimant’s email dated 1 April 2019 constituted a protected act.
70. Between late March 2019 to date, the Claimant has repeatedly requested payment of his outstanding fees; payment for completion of the Note dated 1 April 2019; and compensation for the discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation he has suffered by the Respondent’s conduct towards him. As a result of the Claimant’s repeated requests, he has suffered further discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation by the Respondent. The facts are detailed in email exchanges and correspondence (pp 228-252, documents). The latest correspondence between the Claimant and JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf is dated 22 May 2019. By email of that date, JAJ refused, on the Respondent’s behalf, to enter into any further discussions. The Respondent continued, and continues, to discriminate against and victimise the Claimant. Reference is made to the detail in the email correspondence (documents, pp 253-255).
71. In particular, the Claimant is severely anxious and concerned at the Respondent’s articulated threat (in JAJ’s letter on the Respondent’s behalf dated 25 April 2019) to attempt to justify her conduct towards the Claimant by reference to her misunderstanding of the concepts of conflict of interest and apparent bias. The Respondent’s articulated understanding is defamatory of the Claimant. It suggests that the Claimant should be associated in the perception of survivors of child abuse with a convicted child abuser. This is untrue. The Claimant does not know and has never met the person mentioned. Any legitimate issue relating to conflict of interest could have been remedied by appropriate measures and does not amount to justification of the Respondent’s conduct.
72. The Respondent’s discriminatory conduct towards the Claimant is a continuing state of affairs to date. It began on 1 September 2016 and continues in the most recent email correspondence by JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf on 22 May 2019. The Respondent, through JAJ, makes reference to, and founds upon, the same discriminatory material and comments made by the Respondent on 17 and 21 September 2016. The Respondent, through JAJ’s communications, appeared to be unaware until receiving the Claimant’s email message dated 29 April 2019 that the Claimant was entitled at all material times to the protections of the Equality Act 2010 as a person with a disability. However, even after being so informed, the Respondent continues to discriminate against the Claimant. The Respondent’s discriminatory conduct can be seen to extend over the whole period between 1 September 2016 until 22 May 2019, and to date.
73. The Respondent, through JAJ, further discriminated against and victimised the Claimant in an email message dated 8 May 2019 (documents, p 257). In that message JAJ asserted that the Faculty of Advocates ought to interpret and apply the relevant provisions of its Equality and Diversity Code in a manner that would preclude the Claimant from legitimately submitting his fee note for work done in connection with his Note for SCAI dated 1 April 2019. JAJ’s comments, in this regard, amount to unfavourable treatment by the Respondent because of something arising in connection with the Claimant’s disability. The Claimant’s status as “Exempted Absent” through illness, his Note and his fee note all arose in connection with the Claimant’s disability. These were the causes of JAJ’s email and comments amounting to unfavourable treatment by the Respondent. Further, the Claimant’s work on, and completion of, his Note was a protected act. Through JAJ’s email dated 8 May 2019, the Respondent victimised the Claimant by subjecting him to a detriment because he had done a protected act.

Discrimination arising from disability, section 15(1)

74. The factual allegations above demonstrate that the Respondent discriminated against the Claimant in the manner proscribed by section 15 of the EA 2010. The Respondent’s conduct cannot reasonably be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
75. The Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably throughout the period between 1 September 2016 and 21 October 2016,and thereafter to date, in the specific respects detailed. For the most part, the Respondent ignored the Claimant’s disability and thereby treated the Claimant unfavourably because of matters arising in consequence of it.
76. In the Respondent’s email to the Claimant, dated 21 October 2016, the Respondent instructed the Claimant, “you need to refrain from working at all”. The Respondent purported to be guided by the advice of the Claimant’s GP. The letter from the Claimant’s GP was written in consequence of the Claimant’s disability. The Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of the GP’s letter.
77. The Claimant was able to work. The Claimant was not able to work in the stressful environment which the Respondent, and the SCAI senior team, had created for him. The Claimant sat as Sheriff at Selkirk for three days on 26, 27 and 28 October 2016. The Claimant’s email to the Respondent on 21 October 2016 requested reasonable adjustment and specified as follows:-

“I remain able to work at home for the time being on the material that was previously identified. I will update as appropriate in relation to that work separately. Other than work which I can do at home, I intend to follow Dr Glenfield’s advice from today in relation to the Inquiry.”

78. By instructing that the Claimant refrained from working at all, because of the letter from his GP, the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because it denied the Claimant the opportunity to work flexibly during his illness. The Respondent’s reason for this treatment was stated to be based upon the Claimant’s GP letter. It is clear, therefore, that the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably because of something (the symptoms affecting the Claimant, including stress, that were outlined in his GP letter) that arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability. This discrimination by the Respondent was and is a continuing act that endured for the duration of the Claimant’s engagement as Lead Junior Counsel to the SCAI.
79. Further, by instructing that the Claimant was to stop all SCAI work immediately on 21 October 2016, the Respondent denied to the Claimant the opportunity to complete a summary and to write up the material he had been working on while working at home since 11 October 2016. In this respect the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably. The reason given by the respondent was because of the advice in the Claimant’s GP’s letter. This arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability.
80. The Respondent further discriminated against the Claimant in a connected respect by requiring that the Claimant should return his SCAI equipment, including laptop, blackberry and SCAI papers. This obviously denied the Claimant access to the SCAI email system and to any information about the progress and operation of the SCAI. It also prevented the Claimant from having access to SCAI materials and equipment in order to write up his outstanding work, when fit to do so.
81. The Respondent therefore treated the Claimant unfavourably by requiring the return of these materials (in a hostile manner). This was said to be (at least in part) because the Claimant was ill, according to the reasons explained by the Respondent to the Dean of Faculty on 7 December 2016 (p206, documents). The Claimant was ill because of his cancer related surgery, hospitalisation, recovery at home, chemotherapy etc. These arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability.
82. The Respondent further, again, discriminated against the Claimant in a connected respect. The Claimant required to spend a considerable amount of time writing up his outstanding work. The Claimant completed that summary and sent it to the Respondent by email dated 1 April 2019 with an email explaining his position. The summary runs to in excess of 17,500 words. It is a significant piece of work.
83. On account of the Respondent’s instruction, on the one hand, that the Claimant was to stop work on the SCAI immediately; and that, on the other hand, the Claimant was to “email Colin” with what he had done so far, the Respondent treated the Claimant unfavourably. The Respondent did not leave scope for the Claimant to be able to write up a careful summary of highly sensitive matters that he had been researching.
84. The Respondent required “evidence of the work undertaken” in order to authorise payment of the Claimant’s fees that had already been submitted on 27 October 2016. In order to provide that evidence, the Claimant required to complete further time-consuming work, with great care. In order to be paid his (historical) outstanding fees, therefore, the Claimant required to undertake the writing up work while medically unfit to do so. The Claimant’s medical unfitness at the time of writing up was due, in large measure, to work related stress and anxiety, caused by the Respondent’s record of, and anticipated, hostility to the Claimant.
85. The Respondent, through JAJ in emails to FSL and the Claimant’s clerk, clearly understood the Respondent’s instruction of 21 October 2016 in this respect as requiring evidence of the work undertaken. This continued to April 2019.
86. The Respondent has therefore discriminated against the Claimant. The Respondent has treated the Claimant unfavourably by instructing that he was to stop all SCAI work; but that he was to provide evidence of the work already undertaken; by stopping payment of the Claimant’s outstanding fees which would otherwise have been paid according to the normal arrangements put in place in September 2016 by AS; and by requiring the Claimant to write up the outstanding material while he was ill and (technically) not permitted to fee for that additional work (which the Respondent, through JAJ on 8 May 2019 subsequently attempted to found upon). The Respondent’s instructions were given because of the Claimant’s email to the Respondent dated 21 October 2016; the Claimant’s GP’s letter; because the Claimant had been working at home (through illness) on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016; and because the Claimant was going to be incapacitated for at least a period of time. These matters all arose in consequence of the Claimant’s disability.
87. The Respondent further discriminated against the Claimant in the letter on the Respondent’s behalf, written by JAJ, dated 25 April 2019. Details are set out at paragraphs 66 to 72 above. The Respondent further, again, discriminated against the Claimant in JAJ’s email dated 8 May 2019.

Failures in duty to make reasonable adjustments

88. The Respondent has a duty towards the Claimant to make reasonable adjustments in terms of sections 20 and 21 and 48 of the Equality Act 2010. The Respondent failed, and continues to date to fail, in her duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant and thereby discriminated, and continues to discriminateto date, against the Claimant who is a disabled person.
89. In particular, the Respondent required the Claimant to attend and undertake his work at the SCAI offices. This was a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) for the purposes of section 20(3) of the EA 2010.
90. The Claimant had obtained prior agreement from CM that he could work at home on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016. The Claimant undertook the work during the hours specified in his fee notes. The Claimant’s fee notes complied with the arrangements put in place by AS on 15 September 2016 for detail required and payment of counsels’ fees (pp 34-35, documents). The Respondent and CM communicated by email and phone with the Claimant during various of the dates in question and, therefore, knew he was working at home.
91. The Respondent’s PCP, identified at paragraph 89 above, puts the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, in comparison with persons who are not disabled with his disability, in relation to the requirement to undertake work at the SCAI offices. The Claimant was ill and severely anxious and thereby unable to undertake his work at the SCAI offices. In being unable to undertake work for the SCAI as a result of the Respondent’s PCP, the Claimant was unable to earn income from such work, in contrast with those who do not have the Claimant’s disability who would be able to comply with the PCP.
92. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the Respondent to take the following steps to avoid the disadvantage:- (a) permit the Claimant to work at home, and (b) to provide work for the Claimant to undertake at home.
93. The Respondent has been asked by the Claimant what steps, if any, she would propose to take to enable the Claimant to work from home on SCAI work in the future. The Respondent failed to reply to the Claimant’s question until 25 April 2019. By letter dated 25 April 2019 the Respondent intimated to the Claimant that his appointment as Lead Junior Counsel to SCAI was, effectively, terminated. The Respondent accordingly intimated her intention not to comply with her duty to make reasonable adjustments, despite the Claimant’s request for reasonable adjustments in his email message dated 1 April 2019. (pp 238-243, documents). In addition, in the letter dated 25 April 2019, the Respondent discriminated against and victimised the Claimant. Reference is made to the detail in the letter.
94. The Respondent thereby failed, and continues to fail to date, to comply with her duty to make reasonable adjustments in terms of section 21(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
95. The Respondent discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the Claimant who is a disabled person by her continuing failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant in terms of section 21(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
96. Separately, the Respondent required the Claimant to return his SCAI laptop, blackberry and papers to the SCAI offices. The Respondent put in place a PCP which required counsel who were absent through illness to return SCAI laptop, blackberry and materials to the SCAI offices. This apparent PCP was said by the Respondent to the Dean of Faculty to be necessary, at least in part, because the Claimant was ill (p 206, documents). It was also said to be necessary for data protection reasons (p 185, documents).
97. The Respondent’s PCP put, and continues to put, the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, in comparison with SCAI counsel who are not disabled, in relation to his ability to carry out SCAI work at home. Counsel who are not disabled are permitted to work at the SCAI’s offices, or at home, with the use of SCAI equipment which affords access to the CSAI email system and work materials. The Claimant is not.
98. It would have been, and would be, reasonable to take the following steps to avoid the disadvantage: – (a) to permit the Claimant the use of his SCAI laptop, blackberry and materials so that he could work on SCAI work from home; and (b) to ensure that the Claimant had sufficient and acceptable data protection measures and procedures in place to ensure that no breach of relevant provisions would occur.
99. The Respondent has been asked by the Claimant what steps, if any, she would propose to take to enable the Claimant to work from home on SCAI work in the future. The Respondent has intimated her intention not to comply with her duty to make reasonable adjustments in the letter dated 25 April 2019 sent by JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf. (pp 238-243, documents).
100. The Respondent has thereby failed, and continues to fail to date, to comply with her duty to make reasonable adjustments in terms of section 21(1) of the Equality Act 2010. Reference is made to the letter by JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf dated 25 April 2019 (p240, documents).

Harassment of the Claimant by the Respondent

101. Paragraphs 33 and following, above, disclose and detail a course of conduct by the Respondent (often acting through CM as her delegate) to engage in hostile conduct towards the Claimant when he was acutely ill in hospital, at home, while receiving chemotherapy and thereafter to date.
102. As the Respondent well knew, her conduct towards the Claimant was and is unwanted conduct for the purposes of section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
103. The Respondent’s unwanted conduct related to the Claimant’s protected characteristic of disability in terms of the Equality Act 2010. During the whole period after 10 October 2016 to date, the Claimant was and is disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant is still medically unfit to return to practice because of the Respondent’s conduct towards him.
104. In terms of section 26(1) (b)(i) and (ii), the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards the Claimant between 10 October 2016 to date had both the purpose and effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity; and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the Claimant.
105. The Claimant was seriously ill after 10 October 2016. The Respondent’s conduct towards him treated him as if he had done something wrong, which he had not. For example, the Respondent made a baseless threat to make a professional complaint about the Claimant to the Dean of Faculty. The Respondent threatened the Claimant with Court of Session proceedings for interim interdict. The Respondent had no proper basis for doing so. The Respondent’s actings were intended to create and/or had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the Claimant.
106. The Respondent persisted in contacting the Claimant on 31 October 2016, 2 November 2016 and thereafter. The Respondent well knew, from Dr Glenfield’s letter dated 19 October 2016 and what the Claimant had told CM that the Claimant was to undergo surgery.
107. The Respondent’s unwanted contact, through CM’s email on 31 October 2016 when the Claimant was in surgery for in excess of 4 hours, violated the Claimant’s dignity in a most blatant and indefensible manner.
108. The Respondent’s unwanted contact, through CM’s phone call on 2 November 2016 in pursuit of a prognosis, when the Claimant was very seriously ill and in hospital, violated the Claimant’s dignity.
109. The Respondent has continued to exhibit hostile conduct, amounting to harassment, towards the Claimant since the end of 2016 and to date. Most recently the Respondent has re-asserted, through JAJ’s communications with FSL (on the Claimant’s behalf) that the Claimant’s outstanding SCAI fees will not be paid until the Respondent has received “evidence of the work undertaken”. Those communications also assert that the Claimant “was written to” on 21 October 2016 to this effect.
110. The Respondent received the Claimant’s note, dated 1 April 2019, on that date. The Respondent did not acknowledge or rely until the Claimant received JAJ’s letter dated 25 April 2019. However, JAJ was confirmed to FSL that the Respondent received the Claimant’s email and note on 1 April 2019. The contents of the letter written by JAJ on the Respondent’s behalf further harasses the Claimant by repeating the details of the Respondent’s previous harassment and by making an implicit threat to explain the Respondent’s view of conflict of interest relating to the Claimant in defamatory terms.
111. In these circumstances, the Respondent continues in a course of conduct to harass the Claimant within the meaning of section 26 of the EA 2010. The Claimant has not worked since 28 October 2016. The Respondent continues to unlawfully withhold payment of the Claimant’s fee notes dated 27 October 2016. The Respondent’s actings continue with the apparent purpose and effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity; and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the Claimant. The Claimant requires to continue to request that his fees are paid.

111(a). The Respondent has continued her course of conduct to harass the Claimant following the commencement by the Claimant of the present claim in the Employment Tribunal. When served with the Claimant’s claim by the Tribunal, the Respondent made an incompetent Restriction Order, purportedly under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005, in respect of the claim, its details and documentation. The Respondent subsequently made additional incompetent Restriction Orders relating to the claim. By making incompetent Restriction Orders the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to the Claimant’s disability. The Respondent’s purpose, in relation to the Claimant, is to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent’s purpose is to do so by attempting to ensure that the Claimant is subject to the Respondent’s ongoing statutory jurisdiction, including with the possibility of criminal sanction at the Respondent’s determination. The Respondent unlawfully seeks to be the final arbiter in respect of the Claimant’s claim in violation of the Claimant’s directly effective rights not to be discriminated against. Further, the Respondent unlawfully seeks to harass the Claimant by unlawfully preventing the Claimant from doing protected acts and from exercising his lawful rights, such as to engage with and involve the Equality and Human Rights Commission in relation to his claim.

111(b). The Respondent has also continued her course of conduct to harass the Claimant by making unlawful complaints about the Claimant immediately following upon the commencement of the Claimant’s claim. This is unwanted conduct related to the Claimant’s disability. In particular, on becoming aware on 24 July 2019 that the claimant had raised proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, the Respondent complained to the Lord President about the Claimant’s protected acts. The Lord President immediately, summarily and unlawfully suspended the Claimant from the office of Part Time Sheriff. The Respondent’s complaint was made in order to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the Claimant.

111(c). The Respondent has also continued to harass the Claimant by continuing to make unlawful professional complaints about the Claimant to the Faculty of Advocates. This is unwanted conduct related to the Claimant’s disability. On 24 and 27 July 2019 the Respondent unlawfully complained to the Vice Dean of Faculty about the Claimant. This was immediately upon the Respondent becoming aware of the Claimant’s Employment Tribunal application. The Respondent’s unlawful complaint was made in order to create an intimidating and hostile environment for the Claimant.

Victimisation of the Claimant by the Respondent

112. The Claimant is entitled to protected acts within the meaning of section 27(2) of the EA 2010. The categories of acts that are protected are detailed at section 27(2)(a) to (d).
113. The Claimant was and is entitled to make an allegation that the Respondent has contravened the terms of the Equality Act 2010 in her conduct towards the Claimant.
114. The Claimant’s request to CM on 11 October 2016 to be permitted to work at home was a request for reasonable adjustments in terms of section 20 of the EA 2010. The Claimant’s request was also a protected act within the meaning of section 27(2).
115. The Respondent instructed that the Claimant’s fee notes in respect of his work at home undertaken on 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 October 2016 were not to be paid. The Respondent subjected the Claimant to a detriment because the Claimant did one or more protected acts. The Respondent has repeated this instruction throughout 2016 to 2019. Most recently, the Respondent’s instruction was repeated in response to FSL’s request for payment on 2 April 2019, and to the Claimant on 25 April and thereafter until 22 May 2019 (documents, pp 239-255). The Respondent has victimised, and continues to victimise, the Claimant. The Respondent’s conduct in this regard extends over the whole period to date.
116. As narrated above, on 21 December 2016 the Respondent threatened to raise court proceedings against the Claimant. The Respondent made this threat to the Dean of Faculty. The basis (as the Claimant understood) was said to have been that the Claimant had been telling others about the Respondent’s hostile behaviour to him while he was ill. At the time, the Claimant had been openly saying that the Respondent “sacked him” when he had cancer and refused to pay his outstanding fees. This was said by the Respondent to have been in breach of the Claimant’s confidentiality undertaking in respect of his appointment as counsel to the SCAI.
117. The Respondent’s threat on 21 December was made while she knew the Claimant was ill and had commenced on a course of chemotherapy.
118. The Respondent had no proper basis for making the threat to raise proceedings against the Claimant. The Claimant was, and is, at liberty to do protected acts in terms of section 27(2) of the 2010 Act. The Respondent’s threat constitutes a violation of the Claimant’s right to protected acts in terms of section 27(1). The Respondent victimised, and continues to victimise, the Claimant by her threat to raise court proceedings in the circumstances. The Respondent’s threat constitutes a detriment in terms of section 27(1).
119. The Respondent has not withdrawn the threat to raise proceedings against the Claimant. The Respondent’s conduct in this regard constitutes continuing discriminatory conduct by victimising the Claimant to present date.
120. The Claimant is reasonably apprehensive that the detail of the Respondent’s threat on 21 December 2016, and an inaccurate and incorrect description of the Claimant’s position in, and contribution to, the SCAI will be recorded in the formal SCAI written record. The SCAI’s written record will not be completed until the end of the Inquiry. For this reason, the Respondent’s threat on 21 December 2016, and whatever record exists in respect of her dealings with the Claimant, form part of a seamless whole continuing act by the Respondent.The Respondent’s conduct extends over the whole period of time to date and until the end of the SCAI.
121. The Claimant asserts he is at liberty to do protected acts such as speaking openly, honestly and truthfully, from his own perspective, about his experience of having been subjected to discriminatory conduct, harassment and/or victimisation by the Respondent since 1 September 2016 to date.
122. The Respondent has victimised the Claimant over an extended period between late 2016 to date by subjecting him to detriments as detailed in the paragraphs above.
123. In an email message dated 7 May 2019 the Respondent intimated that it is intended to attempt to rely upon the immunity from suit provisions in section 37 of the Inquiries Act 2005 in response to the Claimant’s allegations (documents, pp249-250). The Claimant has already drawn the Respondent’s attention to the decision of the UKSC in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65. Any attempt by or on behalf of the Respondent to argue this, or any other point, as a preliminary issue ought to be viewed as further re-victimisation of the Claimant.

123(a). The Respondent has continued in her course of conduct to victimise the Claimant by the making of Restriction Orders, by her complaint to the Lord President and by her complaint to the Dean of Faculty in relation to the Claimant all following upon the Claimant’s protected acts in terms of section 27(2) (a), (c) and (d) of the Equality Act 2010. The Respondent’s actions are detriments because of the Claimant’s protected acts. The Respondent’s continuing conduct is unlawful victimisation of the Claimant. The Respondent intends her unlawful conduct to continue until, and beyond, the end of the SCAI. The Claimant has a directly effective EU law right to protection from such victimisation by the Tribunal.

The Claimant’s compensation claims from 7 November 2017 to date

124. The Claimant has not been able to return to his practice as an Advocate since 28 October 2016. The Claimant’s GP records disclose the following relevant details.
125. On 31 October 2016 the Claimant underwent surgery for a right hemicolectomy. He subsequently underwent 8 cycles of chemotherapy with the final 3-week cycle commencing May 2017 and enduring until June 2017.
126. The Claimant suffered severe anxiety and distress because of the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards him throughout September and October 2016 while the Respondent knew that the Claimant was ill.
127. The Claimant suffered severe anxiety and distress because of the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards him from 31 October 2016, throughout his treatment as an in-patient at BGH, until his discharge on 8 November 2016. Details of the Claimant’s severe anxiety and distress are recorded in his GP records and in his records held at BGH.
128. The Claimant suffered severe anxiety and distress between 8 November 2016 and 30 December 2016 because of the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards him. Details are recorded in the Claimant’s GP records.
129. The Claimant was strongly and repeatedly advised of the urgent need to stop thinking about and engaging with issues arising from work at SCAI. He was strongly advised that his ability to endure 8 rounds of chemotherapy was likely to be compromised by the severe anxiety and distress that the Respondent’s hostile conduct was causing him. The Claimant resolved to try to stop thinking about and engaging with issues relating to the Respondent and SCAI work.
130. The Claimant developed a large incisional hernia in his abdomen due to his abdominal wall not having repaired following surgery. The Claimant was advised that the incisional hernia was likely to require surgical intervention. The Claimant required to prepare himself for further surgery. He required to focus, throughout 2017, on (a) successfully completing his course of chemotherapy; and (b) becoming fit enough for anticipated surgery on his incisional hernia to have the best prospect of success.
131. When the Claimant successfully completed chemotherapy in June 2017, he had gained weight because of the medication and its effects on him. His weight had increased to about 14st 7lbs. He was quite unfit. He was advised by his surgeon, Mr Martin Berlansky, in May 2017, that he would require to lose weight in order that proper management of his incisional hernia could be determined.
132. Between about June 2017 and 7 November 2017, the Claimant lost over a stone and a half in weight. He presented at consultation with Mr Berlansky on 7 November 2017 weighing about 12st 10lbs. He anticipated that advice would be given, and arrangements made, for further surgery for the hernia repair.
133. Mr Berlansky and his colleague, Mr Majid Rashid, recorded:-

“He attended clinic today for two reasons. One for a one year follow up with regards to his cancer and secondary due to a large incisional hernia repair….

In regards to his large incisional hernia it is causing him no problems. Mr Halley has done well to lose at least 10 to 12 kilos of weight in the last few months. At this point in time after a long discussion with him and his wife we have decided not to repair the hernia at this point. It is not causing any symptoms and due to its large defect is a low risk for future complications.

We will see him in the clinic in 6 months time to see if anything has changed in regards to his hernia. In the meantime we have encouraged Mr Halley to return back to work and continue his active lifestyle and healthy eating….”

The Claimant continues to suffer anxiety as a result of the Respondent’s continuing conduct towards him. The Claimant continues to be absent from work due to anxiety. The Claimant is constantly preoccupied with the Respondent’s conduct towards him from 2016 to date. He is unable to sleep in his normal settled pattern. He rises early and often has only about 4 hours sleep during the night. He is constantly tired during the day. For the first time in his life, the Claimant was prescribed an anti-depressant, Citalopram, by his GP on 30 April 2019. This was prescribed for anxiety. The Claimant was also prescribed Zopiclone to help him sleep.

From 7 November 2017 the Claimant was physically able to return to work. Prior to 7 November 2017, the Claimant was unable to return to work because he anticipated that he would require to undergo further major surgery for incisional hernia repair. The Claimant’s own management of his incisional hernia, in view of the risks associated with surgical intervention, obviated the need for surgical mesh repair. The situation was to be monitored.

From 7 November 2017 the Claimant was physically fit and able to work at home on SCAI work. The Claimant was severely anxious in relation to thoughts of engaging with the Respondent. Reading and reviewing what had happened to him at the hands of the Respondent and the senior SCAI team was traumatic and made the Claimant severely anxious and very emotional. The detail is distressing for the Claimant.

On account of his severe anxiety caused by the Respondent, the Claimant knew that, if he was to engage with the Respondent this was likely to make him more anxious. Yet the Claimant knew that, if he was to return to practice as an Advocate and Part Time Sheriff, he would require to deal with the issue of his outstanding SCAI fees. The Claimant was not prepared to “write off” those fees for the sake of peace. The Claimant therefore required to ensure that he was strong enough, physically and mentally, to engage with the Respondent, given the Respondent’s status, power, apparent deficit in judgment in respect of the Claimant and lack of compassion.

The Claimant began to attempt to contemplate engagement with the Respondent during 2018. He was unable to engage with the Respondent because of the severe anxiety contemplation of this caused him. Severe anxiety caused by the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards him, which he required to review in documents, caused the Claimant to have difficulty in sleeping intermittently throughout 2018. He would often wake up at around 3am and be unable to sleep due to thoughts about engaging with the Respondent, and the content of emails and materials he required to peruse. He would rise and read the Respondent’s emails. He would be tired for the rest of the day.

On 26 September 2018 the Claimant discussed these matters, again, with his GP. Dr Glenfield certified the Claimant as unfit for work due to ongoing uncertainty about management of the Claimant’s incisional hernia and work-related stress caused by the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards him. The Claimant continues to be certified as unfit for work on account of these issues. He has been reviewed on 19 December 2018 and 26 February 2019. He was certified as unfit for work until 28 June 2019. Subsequently, on 18 June 2019 and 18 July 2019 he was certified as unfit for work indefinitely.

But for the Respondent’s hostile conduct, manifest in discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Claimant, he would have been capable of working at home on SCAI work from 7 November 2017. The Claimant was, and is, able to undertake full time work, with reasonable adjustments to allow him to work for the most part at home. The Claimant is only able to work in a supportive working environment where mutual trust and confidence exists. There is no reasonable prospect of working with the Respondent with mutual trust and confidence. Further, on account of the Respondent’s hostile conduct towards the Claimant, he is prevented by severe anxiety from a return to his practice as an Advocate. The severe anxiety inflicted upon the Claimant by the Respondent is likely to have a continuing effect on his fitness for practice at the Bar in the future. He is unlikely to be fit to resume practice as an Advocate. He is not able to work in an adversarial environment. The Respondent’s hostile conduct, manifest in discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Claimant, has caused, and will continue in the future to cause, losses in fee income to the Claimant.

The Claimant has been able to undertake some work in supportive environments where trust and confidence exist. The Claimant has carried out work during 2017, 2018 and 2019 in the Catholic University, Porto in Portugal; with Amparo y Justicia and the Chilean Judicial Institute in Santiago in Chile; with the Politihogskolen (Police University College) in Oslo in Norway; with police officers from English forces at Keele University, England; with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in Edinburgh; and, regularly, with the Joint Investigative Interview Project Team at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan Castle, Kincardine. But for the Respondent’s hostile conduct, manifest in discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Claimant, he could have worked full time on SCAI work from 7 November 2017.

The Claimant has suffered financial loss of fee income as a result of the Respondent’s hostile conduct, manifest in discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Claimant. The Claimant’s assessment of financial loss of fee income from work on the SCAI is a reasonable estimate of the Claimant’s financial losses associated with work on the SCAI. The hours which the Claimant would have worked, but for the Respondent’s conduct towards him, can be compared with those actually worked by other senior and junior counsel to the SCAI (with the exception of JP since his hours were capped at a maximum of 40 per week).

In addition, the Claimant seeks compensation for the anxiety and distress he has suffered through the Respondent’s discrimination, harassment and victimisation of the Claimant. The Respondent’s conduct has had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the Claimant. The Claimant has required to re-engage with the Respondent and the SCAI. This is very difficult and dangerous for the Claimant. It was not clear how the Respondent would respond to him. An application to the Employment Tribunal is likely to have an adverse impact on the Claimant’s professional standing in the circumstances. The unique and extreme circumstances of the Claimant’s claim should be reflected in an award of compensation made by the Tribunal.